Written: 04/05/2009
Publication: n/a
Publish Date: n/a
According to Scott Sernau, “Race is a social construction, not a biological fact… Arrange a sampling of the world’s population in a line from lightest to darkest, and the result is a continuous gradation.” Racial segregation between blacks and whites is a persistent social construction. Humans naturally create racial divisions attempting to compartmentalize and separate the weak from the strong and the light from the dark. The prevailing attitudes that exist in the United States concerning racial inequality are reminiscent of skin color associations made in the past.
Race and ethnicity are not what causes segregation but rather the connections created by the recognition and classification of one’s skin color. As societies began to separate “colored” from “white” skinned people, color became an important factor in determining a person’s fate and success. Sernau adds, “Color and class became intertwined. Lighter groups fared better than darker ones. Even within the black community, color often mattered.” This color distinction made it easy for white slave owners to identify and exploit darker skinned individuals. Furthermore, slavery in the United States hinged on the belief and perpetuation that dark or black skin color signified an inherited inferiority.
Today, blacks living in the United Sates are constitutionally free and equal to whites. However, blacks with lighter skin enjoy better class mobility and are able to secure more lucrative positions of power than their darker counterparts. According to Sernau, “The most accepted black leaders are those who neither look particularly ‘black’ nor speak in a particularly ‘black way.’” Examples of his hypothesis can be found in individuals such as Colin Powell, Barack Obama, and Condoleezza Rice. Though each individual does not act in a “black way” they are all considered prominent black leaders. Ironically, during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign many political and media figures questioned if he was “black enough.”
Similar questioning evokes a sense of stereotypical expectations of black leaders in America – easily likened to the actions taken toward the African slaves that were justified by harsh stereotypes. Though American officials claim to be moving away from race based distinctions, it is evident that some political and social leaders want race to be an issue. We can also assume that not only whites, but blacks as well, want racial inequality to continue to be an issue in the United States. According to black radio journalist Larry Elder, “Most blacks, despite tremendous social, economic, and political progress, expect race relations to remain a problem in this country.”
It is questionable whether or not Elder’s opinions are wide-spread throughout the black population, but he does raise an interesting argument. Perhaps black political and civic leaders view racial inequality and class struggle as a tool toward bettering the black community. This thought would support the Conflict Theory outlined by Karl Marx and Max Waber. However, according to the Davis and Moore Functional Theory of Stratification, class conflict is a strictly ideological approach to social inequality. Moreover, Davis and Moore contend that the conflict theory argues what ought to be, but does not describe what is.
Davis and Moore’s Functional Theory of Stratification claims, “Inequality motivates hard work, competition, and efficiency.” Whereas Melvin Tumin asserts, “Inequality erodes opportunity, perpetuates privilege, and undermines motivation and hard work while it perpetuates inefficiencies.” Larry Elder would most likely follow the Davis and Moore theory and reject the conflict theory completely. However, according to his first assumption, most black leaders may want or need class conflict to exist. Either way, both theories allude to an inherent hierarchical structure within society. The Social Dominance Theory explains that hierarchy exists within all social groups and asserts that inequality is essential to maintaining social order.
The compulsory segregation of blacks in the United States began with residential segregation following the civil war. Just as white slave owners segregated blacks for decades in order to impose social dominance, the U.S. government created similar social restraints. The government used Supreme Court decisions to create laws that perpetuated social dominance over blacks through segregation. The Supreme Court case Plessy vs. Ferguson, of 1896, upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in public accommodations and declared “separate but equal” as standard practice in law. However, “separate but equal” laws seemed to be rarely equal and always separate. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka later overruled this case in 1954, declaring that separate educational facilities for children denied black children equal opportunities. This Supreme Count decision ended de jure racial segregation and cleared a path for racial incorporation. Residential segregation persisted until the late 1960s, but with the advent of the civil rights movement, it was virtually brought to an end.
According to the Kerner Commission on residential segregation, “White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” The commission focused their examination on racial ghettos and housing inequality among black communities. Denton and Massey argue that, “Segregation created the structural conditions for the emergence of an oppositional culture that devalues work, schooling, and marriage and stresses attitudes and behaviors that are antithetical and often hostile to the success of the larger community.”
Therefore, we can assume that problems apparent in the black community and the racial inequality among black and whites today are not singular occurrences. Rather, these problems have been perpetuated out of compulsory residential segregation and established restrictions. Though the Fair Housing Act ended residential segregation in 1968, the effects of compulsory residential segregation can still be examined within black culture. Moreover, since blacks and whites rarely cohabitate, little has been shared culturally, resulting in differing social norms hardening over time. The prevailing thoughts of whites regarding blacks may be primarily shaped by this turbulent time in American history. If so, recent racial inequality and prejudice would seem outdated and archaic as an individual’s fundamental mindset.
According to Denton and Massey, “The urban underclass thus arose from a complex interplay of civil rights policy, economic restructuring, and a historical legacy of discrimination.” Larry Elder’s argument may seem overstated when we consider that many black Americans still live in a residentially segregated society. Furthermore, black segregation cannot be likened to other segregation experienced by other racial or ethnic groups, simply because blacks living in the United States experienced such a high sustained level of residential segregation. Because of this pattern of institutionalized segregation Denton and Massey argue that residential segregation, “Shows little sign of change with the passage of time or improvements in socioeconomic status.” Though the government may no longer support the compulsory segregation of blacks, many within the community have low socioeconomic standing and thus have poor class mobility.
After the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the 1970s and 1980s were marked by the absence of a word from the American vocabulary. The word was segregation. As if afraid of a second coming, the American public swept the word under the “tolerance” rug, never to be uttered again. However, it is not the word that caused so much damage, but rather how its users manipulated it. The associations and reservations conveyed by the word solidified individual’s prevailing thoughts and may have lead to some racial inequality experienced today. Though the word did resurface over time, this disregard for a single word may have been the first widespread occurrence of a racial language phobia.
Taken from: The Language of Inequality: Examining Voluntary Segregation within Social Order by Mr. Madison
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
An Abject Failure: Reforming Edinboro University’s Student Government Association
Written: 03/17/2009
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 22, 2009
In the wake of recent SGA corruption and misgivings, it is necessary that the students of Edinboro University speak out against this faux student-run régime. The SGA claims to give students a voice by offering a democratically elected congress and executive board, but in recent times this has not been the case. Nor has the SGA used the voting process properly with regard to fund allocations; allocations to which every student contributes and is entitled.
SGA should promote equal rights for all students. SGA should encourage and provide equal rights and involvement opportunities for all organizations, offering all organizations the same rights for obtaining funds. Lastly, SGA should not only be open to the wants and needs of students, but should also encourage a constructive dialogue and act as a “servant-leader.” Unfortunately, SGA has accomplished none of these goals.
Today we see an SGA that values prestige and “face-time” over the core altruistic values for which it was once created. Frankly, the system no longer works and it seems to have more glitches than Microsoft’s Vista; in large part because of the absence of three key elements necessary for institutional success: integrity, vision, and sense.
Today’s SGA makes a mockery of the democratic process and often ignores the legitimate pleas of the students it seemingly represents. By creating a “House of Representatives” in 2008, the association touted a new outlet for clubs and organizations. However, the outlet came with strings attached: House members were required to attend numerous, and sometimes exhausting, meetings, even if they received no funding from SGA. Punishment for non-attendance amounted in funding cuts and the loss of a mailbox. (In recent meetings, SGA has admitted that the mailboxes are rarely used, since important information is usually communicated via email or collegiatelink.net.)
In hindsight, SGA realized that most students did not want to attend these three hour long meetings, dealing with the blinding bureaucracy and harsh attitudes of the executive board. “Come on guys, we expect more for you,” was the board’s typical way of attempting to shame motivation into its membership. When will they realize that the students they serve are the ones who have unmet expectations?
When it comes to the communication problems further exacerbated by taking away mailboxes and freezing accounts, who is really at fault? Several organizations protested that they had not been receiving any emails at all. All organizations have had to update their information at the start of each semester and update their constitutions, therefore SGA should have every president and advisors email on file. Unfortunately for the student body, this information has been commonly “misplaced” or “lost” within the annals of the SGA office. This kind negligence is unacceptable.
Yet, operating free from SGA’s purview is more than simply discouraged: it’s nearly impossible. Clubs and organizations are inhibited from having a successful fundraising program due to the SGA approval process. Every club wishing to fundraise on campus must seek the “OK” from SGA, which is offered only with the implicit understanding that the club must “tow” the SGA line and not attempt to disaffiliate.
The massive amount of unallocated funds that lay in the lap of the current Director of Finance are stubbornly released and almost bitterly guarded. This money is taken from student tuitions and much of it is used in a pork barrel fashion. Larger, and arguably less deserving organizations, often receive massive amounts of funding, while smaller, arguably more deserving, organizations are left to count their pennies and scrape along. In SGA it seems that compensation is awarded less for reasons of merit than for reasons of personal relationship.
Sense would dictate that by allowing clubs and organizations easy access to funding and encouraging sovereignty with little obligation to SGA, students would participate in many more activities naturally. Why won’t SGA trust the student body to spend their own money? This democratic fallacy mars the integrity of the Student Government Association and its alleged pro-student attitude.
SGA mandates that all student clubs and organizations participate and be active during meetings. Yet, some of their own rules disinvite active participation. According to the SGA minutes taken from 03/09/09, “Candidates for Vice-President must be a current full time student and have completed two semesters of college as a full time student at Edinboro University.” This does not allow for all students to be involved. Why are full time students given priority to run for positions? Shouldn’t all students, full- or part-time, be able to run for executive board positions, since all students are required to attend meetings?
The assumption of the executive board seems to be that part-time students are not familiar enough with campus. Many members of SGA noted that since only full-time students can live within the residence halls, only they would have the necessary understanding for the layout and culture of the university. Resident students, however, have their own organization: the Residence Hall Association. SGA is designed to be for all students. Additionally, consider the living situations for current executive board members: According to the Edinboro University Campus Directory, the President of SGA does not live on campus but rather on Erie Street in the borough of Edinboro. The Vice President of SGA does not live on campus but rather an undisclosed location off campus. Furthermore, the Director of Finance, the Secretary, the Parliamentarian, and the Executive Assistant all live off-campus. True, each is a full-time student, but just how much of that “time” is spent on-campus? It leaves one to wonder what the real reason may be for disallowing all students to participate in the SGA electoral process. We may never know.
SGA must become a “servant-leader” to the students, void of nonsensical banter and frivolous voting measures that deter and stifle progress. SGA is ripping the Edinboro University student body apart at the seams with its on-going battle between unrealistic bureaucracy and pragmatic altruism. Only when the “servant-leader” role is realized and pursued by the students of Edinboro University, may the wrongs of SGA be reversed.
Regards,
Mr. Madsion
Mrs. Madison
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 22, 2009
In the wake of recent SGA corruption and misgivings, it is necessary that the students of Edinboro University speak out against this faux student-run régime. The SGA claims to give students a voice by offering a democratically elected congress and executive board, but in recent times this has not been the case. Nor has the SGA used the voting process properly with regard to fund allocations; allocations to which every student contributes and is entitled.
SGA should promote equal rights for all students. SGA should encourage and provide equal rights and involvement opportunities for all organizations, offering all organizations the same rights for obtaining funds. Lastly, SGA should not only be open to the wants and needs of students, but should also encourage a constructive dialogue and act as a “servant-leader.” Unfortunately, SGA has accomplished none of these goals.
Today we see an SGA that values prestige and “face-time” over the core altruistic values for which it was once created. Frankly, the system no longer works and it seems to have more glitches than Microsoft’s Vista; in large part because of the absence of three key elements necessary for institutional success: integrity, vision, and sense.
Today’s SGA makes a mockery of the democratic process and often ignores the legitimate pleas of the students it seemingly represents. By creating a “House of Representatives” in 2008, the association touted a new outlet for clubs and organizations. However, the outlet came with strings attached: House members were required to attend numerous, and sometimes exhausting, meetings, even if they received no funding from SGA. Punishment for non-attendance amounted in funding cuts and the loss of a mailbox. (In recent meetings, SGA has admitted that the mailboxes are rarely used, since important information is usually communicated via email or collegiatelink.net.)
In hindsight, SGA realized that most students did not want to attend these three hour long meetings, dealing with the blinding bureaucracy and harsh attitudes of the executive board. “Come on guys, we expect more for you,” was the board’s typical way of attempting to shame motivation into its membership. When will they realize that the students they serve are the ones who have unmet expectations?
When it comes to the communication problems further exacerbated by taking away mailboxes and freezing accounts, who is really at fault? Several organizations protested that they had not been receiving any emails at all. All organizations have had to update their information at the start of each semester and update their constitutions, therefore SGA should have every president and advisors email on file. Unfortunately for the student body, this information has been commonly “misplaced” or “lost” within the annals of the SGA office. This kind negligence is unacceptable.
Yet, operating free from SGA’s purview is more than simply discouraged: it’s nearly impossible. Clubs and organizations are inhibited from having a successful fundraising program due to the SGA approval process. Every club wishing to fundraise on campus must seek the “OK” from SGA, which is offered only with the implicit understanding that the club must “tow” the SGA line and not attempt to disaffiliate.
The massive amount of unallocated funds that lay in the lap of the current Director of Finance are stubbornly released and almost bitterly guarded. This money is taken from student tuitions and much of it is used in a pork barrel fashion. Larger, and arguably less deserving organizations, often receive massive amounts of funding, while smaller, arguably more deserving, organizations are left to count their pennies and scrape along. In SGA it seems that compensation is awarded less for reasons of merit than for reasons of personal relationship.
Sense would dictate that by allowing clubs and organizations easy access to funding and encouraging sovereignty with little obligation to SGA, students would participate in many more activities naturally. Why won’t SGA trust the student body to spend their own money? This democratic fallacy mars the integrity of the Student Government Association and its alleged pro-student attitude.
SGA mandates that all student clubs and organizations participate and be active during meetings. Yet, some of their own rules disinvite active participation. According to the SGA minutes taken from 03/09/09, “Candidates for Vice-President must be a current full time student and have completed two semesters of college as a full time student at Edinboro University.” This does not allow for all students to be involved. Why are full time students given priority to run for positions? Shouldn’t all students, full- or part-time, be able to run for executive board positions, since all students are required to attend meetings?
The assumption of the executive board seems to be that part-time students are not familiar enough with campus. Many members of SGA noted that since only full-time students can live within the residence halls, only they would have the necessary understanding for the layout and culture of the university. Resident students, however, have their own organization: the Residence Hall Association. SGA is designed to be for all students. Additionally, consider the living situations for current executive board members: According to the Edinboro University Campus Directory, the President of SGA does not live on campus but rather on Erie Street in the borough of Edinboro. The Vice President of SGA does not live on campus but rather an undisclosed location off campus. Furthermore, the Director of Finance, the Secretary, the Parliamentarian, and the Executive Assistant all live off-campus. True, each is a full-time student, but just how much of that “time” is spent on-campus? It leaves one to wonder what the real reason may be for disallowing all students to participate in the SGA electoral process. We may never know.
SGA must become a “servant-leader” to the students, void of nonsensical banter and frivolous voting measures that deter and stifle progress. SGA is ripping the Edinboro University student body apart at the seams with its on-going battle between unrealistic bureaucracy and pragmatic altruism. Only when the “servant-leader” role is realized and pursued by the students of Edinboro University, may the wrongs of SGA be reversed.
Regards,
Mr. Madsion
Mrs. Madison
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Over The Air Waves: A Political Reflection
Written: 01/11/2009
Publication: Edinboro University's WFSE Radio
Publish Date: January 11, 2008
My father once told me, as many parents tell their young, naive children: “Son, don’t ever debate religion or politics.” He said this of course as we entered my grandparent’s house on one snowy Christmas day. My family, you see is a fickle bunch. Us Millers… we know it all. Seriously we do, or at least we think we do. My Uncle Jeff is a writer, my aunt Nancy is a (quote un quote) jock, my uncle David is an artist, and they all formidable players in the battle of who knows more. My father tended to be the least outspoken of the bunch. I think after years of watching the mayhem of yuletide sparing and almost blow for blow insulting, my psyche learned to take a neutral approach to arguing. I guess I never needed my dad’s advice after all, but I certainly never forgot.
I don’t like to argue, unless it’s with my siblings, then it takes on a completely different form all together. Imagine angry chimpanzees given machine guns, then shaved with a rusty razor, then told to fight. That is how toughs’ arguments usually pan out. I’m not saying I don’t love my siblings, but our fights sure are epic.
Arguing is an art form, one that I don’t really understand, because I can never make up my mind. Red or Blue, soft or dark, what does it all matter? Tax cut or reform? Aren’t they the same in the end? I guess you could say I’m a modern day moderate, if that makes any sense. I used to align much of my views with the libertarian party, but over time I drifted. This drift was not intentional, but rather my minds eye sorting out what was right and what was wrong. However, this shift to the middle has only left me begging for more answers to questions that may never be answered.
The calamity of a world that always has been, is a place that cannot be figured out or understood. We, as humans must grasp the handlebars as the threat of flying off the bicycle looms. I don’t know if the world will end in 2012, nor do I know if president elect Obama is a Muslim in disguise. All I know is that I know nothing. I think Socrates put it the best way: “I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.”
I don’t know many things and perhaps that is why my father told me so long ago never to arouse my family with the prospect of arguing those two taboo topics. Nonetheless here I sit, about this embark on a radio journey that will seek out better understanding and comprehension of the innumerable problems plaguing our society. I don’t want argue nonsensically nor debate in the friviless fashion of left vs. right, but rather transcend to an enlightened, analytical, mindset and leave it all far behind.
Best,
Mr. Madison
Publication: Edinboro University's WFSE Radio
Publish Date: January 11, 2008
My father once told me, as many parents tell their young, naive children: “Son, don’t ever debate religion or politics.” He said this of course as we entered my grandparent’s house on one snowy Christmas day. My family, you see is a fickle bunch. Us Millers… we know it all. Seriously we do, or at least we think we do. My Uncle Jeff is a writer, my aunt Nancy is a (quote un quote) jock, my uncle David is an artist, and they all formidable players in the battle of who knows more. My father tended to be the least outspoken of the bunch. I think after years of watching the mayhem of yuletide sparing and almost blow for blow insulting, my psyche learned to take a neutral approach to arguing. I guess I never needed my dad’s advice after all, but I certainly never forgot.
I don’t like to argue, unless it’s with my siblings, then it takes on a completely different form all together. Imagine angry chimpanzees given machine guns, then shaved with a rusty razor, then told to fight. That is how toughs’ arguments usually pan out. I’m not saying I don’t love my siblings, but our fights sure are epic.
Arguing is an art form, one that I don’t really understand, because I can never make up my mind. Red or Blue, soft or dark, what does it all matter? Tax cut or reform? Aren’t they the same in the end? I guess you could say I’m a modern day moderate, if that makes any sense. I used to align much of my views with the libertarian party, but over time I drifted. This drift was not intentional, but rather my minds eye sorting out what was right and what was wrong. However, this shift to the middle has only left me begging for more answers to questions that may never be answered.
The calamity of a world that always has been, is a place that cannot be figured out or understood. We, as humans must grasp the handlebars as the threat of flying off the bicycle looms. I don’t know if the world will end in 2012, nor do I know if president elect Obama is a Muslim in disguise. All I know is that I know nothing. I think Socrates put it the best way: “I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.”
I don’t know many things and perhaps that is why my father told me so long ago never to arouse my family with the prospect of arguing those two taboo topics. Nonetheless here I sit, about this embark on a radio journey that will seek out better understanding and comprehension of the innumerable problems plaguing our society. I don’t want argue nonsensically nor debate in the friviless fashion of left vs. right, but rather transcend to an enlightened, analytical, mindset and leave it all far behind.
Best,
Mr. Madison
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Fated to Fail: An Examination of Edinboro University’s Student Government Association
Written: 10/08/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 15, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008 the Edinboro University Student Government Association held an “important” meeting in which all clubs and SGA funded organizations had to attend. Arriving at the Pouge Student Center’s Multi-purpose room around 5:00pm, a crowd of students shuffled about trying their designated seats. However empty binders and poorly organized rows seemed to stifle the process.
After a 15-minute delay, the meeting finally got underway. Observing the students sitting in the “house” area, most seemed to be distance and catatonic. It is unlikely that any of the students truly wanted to attend the “mandatory” meeting or even understood their purpose there. Following a 30-minute lecture on the progress of SGA, the budget, and the acquisition of new organizations, it finally came time to discuss the reason all the clubs had been called to attend.
Kristen Zelechowski, the SGA president and campus sorority leader, spoke to the crowd of students in an attempt to explain new voting procedures and allocations. She also mentioned SGA was now requiring 140 representatives from campus groups at the first and third SGA meetings every month with only fourteen of these allowed to vote. The president danced around the real issue time and again, however, until one of the house members popped the proverbial bubble. “Do we have to come to every meeting?”
Unfortunately for the Clubs and Organizations on campus, SGA deemed that every club and organization must have a representative at the first and third meeting of every month. This presented some major problems to the majority of the house. One representative asked “was their any student oversight when this decision was cast?” This question was not answered. Winston Alozie of the congress stated to the house that he disagreed with the legislation and voted against the decision.
There are many reasons why this legislation is fated to fail; the first of reasons being the issue of representation. The house will only be allotted 14 votes in congress. Fourteen votes which are supposed to reflect the opinions of nearly 140 clubs and organizations. This number will not and truly cannot represent the constituency of the greater student body. The second reason why legislation such as this will fail is due to the ridiculous attendance policy. Granted clubs and organizations can cycle through members of their individual groups to attend the SGA meetings, but most clubs and organizations on campus cannot even get students to show up to one meeting a week!
SGA should not be trying to create more bureaucracy, but rather refine the process for clubs and organizations. E-mail, facebook, and online postings are all viable solutions to any communication issues. If this legislation lives, over time student clubs and organizations will begin to see a systematic break down of the “core” members who are involved in just about every other club on campus. These students will grow tired of the excessive meetings and mandates required by the SGA executive board. The small nucleus of students on campus who really care was at the meeting last Monday and most of them did not even want to be there. We need to work on bringing attendance numbers up in our clubs rather than committing our executive board members to more mundane meetings.
The “show up or shut up” mentality of SGA needs to change. They must no longer slap the wrists of clubs and organizations for simply not attending meetings. SGA funds are taken from the activity fees of all students and are destined for redistribution into clubs and organizations. SGA cannot withhold these funds from the very people that gave money to them. SGA will find out fast that student run organizations do not need the crutch of SGA funding if they are not treated with respect. Lastly, The SGA executive board needs to open their eyes and present quantitative evidence supporting a decision supporting the actions they have taken. Just because “they do this at Cal U” doesn’t mean we have to do this here.
With the Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
Mr. Jackson
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 15, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008 the Edinboro University Student Government Association held an “important” meeting in which all clubs and SGA funded organizations had to attend. Arriving at the Pouge Student Center’s Multi-purpose room around 5:00pm, a crowd of students shuffled about trying their designated seats. However empty binders and poorly organized rows seemed to stifle the process.
After a 15-minute delay, the meeting finally got underway. Observing the students sitting in the “house” area, most seemed to be distance and catatonic. It is unlikely that any of the students truly wanted to attend the “mandatory” meeting or even understood their purpose there. Following a 30-minute lecture on the progress of SGA, the budget, and the acquisition of new organizations, it finally came time to discuss the reason all the clubs had been called to attend.
Kristen Zelechowski, the SGA president and campus sorority leader, spoke to the crowd of students in an attempt to explain new voting procedures and allocations. She also mentioned SGA was now requiring 140 representatives from campus groups at the first and third SGA meetings every month with only fourteen of these allowed to vote. The president danced around the real issue time and again, however, until one of the house members popped the proverbial bubble. “Do we have to come to every meeting?”
Unfortunately for the Clubs and Organizations on campus, SGA deemed that every club and organization must have a representative at the first and third meeting of every month. This presented some major problems to the majority of the house. One representative asked “was their any student oversight when this decision was cast?” This question was not answered. Winston Alozie of the congress stated to the house that he disagreed with the legislation and voted against the decision.
There are many reasons why this legislation is fated to fail; the first of reasons being the issue of representation. The house will only be allotted 14 votes in congress. Fourteen votes which are supposed to reflect the opinions of nearly 140 clubs and organizations. This number will not and truly cannot represent the constituency of the greater student body. The second reason why legislation such as this will fail is due to the ridiculous attendance policy. Granted clubs and organizations can cycle through members of their individual groups to attend the SGA meetings, but most clubs and organizations on campus cannot even get students to show up to one meeting a week!
SGA should not be trying to create more bureaucracy, but rather refine the process for clubs and organizations. E-mail, facebook, and online postings are all viable solutions to any communication issues. If this legislation lives, over time student clubs and organizations will begin to see a systematic break down of the “core” members who are involved in just about every other club on campus. These students will grow tired of the excessive meetings and mandates required by the SGA executive board. The small nucleus of students on campus who really care was at the meeting last Monday and most of them did not even want to be there. We need to work on bringing attendance numbers up in our clubs rather than committing our executive board members to more mundane meetings.
The “show up or shut up” mentality of SGA needs to change. They must no longer slap the wrists of clubs and organizations for simply not attending meetings. SGA funds are taken from the activity fees of all students and are destined for redistribution into clubs and organizations. SGA cannot withhold these funds from the very people that gave money to them. SGA will find out fast that student run organizations do not need the crutch of SGA funding if they are not treated with respect. Lastly, The SGA executive board needs to open their eyes and present quantitative evidence supporting a decision supporting the actions they have taken. Just because “they do this at Cal U” doesn’t mean we have to do this here.
With the Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
Mr. Jackson
Letter to The SGA President
Written: 10/07/2008
Publication: n/a
Publish Date: n/a
Madam President,
I've been doing some research regarding the California University Student Government Constitution. I've noticed that the House of Representatives is required to be at every meeting, but each member gets a vote equal to that of a congressman. I've also noticed that their constitution has a student cabinet, with two representatives (voting) from the House. Do we have one of these? And if so, will it have the same representation?
I tried to cross reference our constitution with Cal U's to see if there were any parallels between the two documents, but the Edinboro University constitution is not available for referencing. I believe that it is quite irresponsible for the Student Government to be making rash decisions without documenting any changes made to the constitution. Or for that matter informing the student body. The last time I checked, SGA is a "student organization."
Lastly, I want you to know I am sorry for any disturbance I may have caused yesterday during the meeting. However please be aware; if I and other students are required to attend these meetings with almost zero votes in congress, I WILL rock the boat till the sides go under. I will be patiently awaiting your response.
Regards,
Mr. Madison
Her Response: 10/07/2008
Hey,
I understand your concern. We are working diligently on this issue.
-Kristen
Publication: n/a
Publish Date: n/a
Madam President,
I've been doing some research regarding the California University Student Government Constitution. I've noticed that the House of Representatives is required to be at every meeting, but each member gets a vote equal to that of a congressman. I've also noticed that their constitution has a student cabinet, with two representatives (voting) from the House. Do we have one of these? And if so, will it have the same representation?
I tried to cross reference our constitution with Cal U's to see if there were any parallels between the two documents, but the Edinboro University constitution is not available for referencing. I believe that it is quite irresponsible for the Student Government to be making rash decisions without documenting any changes made to the constitution. Or for that matter informing the student body. The last time I checked, SGA is a "student organization."
Lastly, I want you to know I am sorry for any disturbance I may have caused yesterday during the meeting. However please be aware; if I and other students are required to attend these meetings with almost zero votes in congress, I WILL rock the boat till the sides go under. I will be patiently awaiting your response.
Regards,
Mr. Madison
Her Response: 10/07/2008
Hey,
I understand your concern. We are working diligently on this issue.
-Kristen
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sarah Palin: Worst Political Blunder or Best One-Two Punch?
Written: 09/10/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 1, 2008
Just as the world seems to be falling into a routine and Americans grow more predictable than ever before, the blinding light of change encompasses us! However this is not just any change, but rather the kind wrapped in a bow and stamped with political seal of approval. Who started all this talk of change anyway I ask? Perhaps it began years ago when Americans began to realize that the neo-conservative big wigs in Washington where no longer listening to their cries. Or maybe it started when Al Gore made a pathetic attempt to inform the public about global warming, while squeezing out some sympathy for his failed white house jaunt. Perhaps the “change” mentality came from one of these other reasons: American’s uncertainty about the war in Iraq, the shaky economy, the failing housing market, or maybe it was just the Chupacabra…
Whatever the reason, change is occurring all around us. In fact, the United States is in a constant state of volatile change. Though many of America’s youth will vehemently argue this notion, it is true. Simply look at the current presidential candidates and their running mates. Announcing his run for the presidency back in February 2007, senator Barack Obama, became the first black man to win the democratic nomination for president. If not historic enough, a political first was borne of the Republican camp with the assignment of governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate. Shocking many conservatives and liberals alike, Palin’s nomination seemed almost surreal.
To fully understand why governor Sarah Palin had been chosen as John McCain’s running mate, one must look at the circumstance to which the governor was hurled into the presidential limelight. Forgoing the normal absent-minded statements that have cluttered the news channels and opinion pages alike; statements such as “she has no experience” and “she is a bible-thumper,” let us attempt to analyze the motive behind her nomination.
So what is the real problem with vice presidential pick Governor Palin? As traditional American political logic dictates, a vice president must fulfill two tasks. First, they must not create turbulence and second, they must be vetted. So far Sarah Palin (or “barracuda” as she is more affectionately know) has come into this race with guns blazing. She has badgered Barack Obama’s track record and stirred up debate among the conservative base. Some may say her exuberance has been a good thing, creating a new excitement within the party. I disagree.
With the exception of vice presidential hit men like Richard Nixon; the vice president should not “rock the boat.” Sarah Palin seems to be vainly lashing out against the democrats in order to show some sort of dominance or strength. The only thing that has grown out of her argumentative nature is a separation between herself and pro-Hillary voting Americans which she may had wanted to gain. At least “tricky dick” was quiet about his dirty work.
The second criterion for a vice presidential candidate, logically, is to be vetted. Governor Palin has had very little national media coverage prior to McCain’s “great revelation” that she would be his running mate. This can have dire implications for any politician seeking a seat in the white house. Simply put, the media have not exploited her yet and her “dirty laundry” has not been aired to the public. Also, by simply throwing in a candidate that no one has ever heard before, many citizens will think she was selected more for her gender than her actual intelligence.
Will the choice of Sarah Palin go down as the worst political blunder in history or the best one-two punch to the Democratic Party? Only time will tell. Nevertheless, certain questions must be asked of the Republican Party. Was Sarah Palin picked as the vice presidential running mate simply to “shock and aw” the public? Or is she really the “great reformer” we are being promised will change Washington? Whatever the answer, Sarah Palin defies traditional politics. However in this age of rapid change, politics in 2008 defy most “normal” conventions.
Respectfully,
Mr. Madison
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: October 1, 2008
Just as the world seems to be falling into a routine and Americans grow more predictable than ever before, the blinding light of change encompasses us! However this is not just any change, but rather the kind wrapped in a bow and stamped with political seal of approval. Who started all this talk of change anyway I ask? Perhaps it began years ago when Americans began to realize that the neo-conservative big wigs in Washington where no longer listening to their cries. Or maybe it started when Al Gore made a pathetic attempt to inform the public about global warming, while squeezing out some sympathy for his failed white house jaunt. Perhaps the “change” mentality came from one of these other reasons: American’s uncertainty about the war in Iraq, the shaky economy, the failing housing market, or maybe it was just the Chupacabra…
Whatever the reason, change is occurring all around us. In fact, the United States is in a constant state of volatile change. Though many of America’s youth will vehemently argue this notion, it is true. Simply look at the current presidential candidates and their running mates. Announcing his run for the presidency back in February 2007, senator Barack Obama, became the first black man to win the democratic nomination for president. If not historic enough, a political first was borne of the Republican camp with the assignment of governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s running mate. Shocking many conservatives and liberals alike, Palin’s nomination seemed almost surreal.
To fully understand why governor Sarah Palin had been chosen as John McCain’s running mate, one must look at the circumstance to which the governor was hurled into the presidential limelight. Forgoing the normal absent-minded statements that have cluttered the news channels and opinion pages alike; statements such as “she has no experience” and “she is a bible-thumper,” let us attempt to analyze the motive behind her nomination.
So what is the real problem with vice presidential pick Governor Palin? As traditional American political logic dictates, a vice president must fulfill two tasks. First, they must not create turbulence and second, they must be vetted. So far Sarah Palin (or “barracuda” as she is more affectionately know) has come into this race with guns blazing. She has badgered Barack Obama’s track record and stirred up debate among the conservative base. Some may say her exuberance has been a good thing, creating a new excitement within the party. I disagree.
With the exception of vice presidential hit men like Richard Nixon; the vice president should not “rock the boat.” Sarah Palin seems to be vainly lashing out against the democrats in order to show some sort of dominance or strength. The only thing that has grown out of her argumentative nature is a separation between herself and pro-Hillary voting Americans which she may had wanted to gain. At least “tricky dick” was quiet about his dirty work.
The second criterion for a vice presidential candidate, logically, is to be vetted. Governor Palin has had very little national media coverage prior to McCain’s “great revelation” that she would be his running mate. This can have dire implications for any politician seeking a seat in the white house. Simply put, the media have not exploited her yet and her “dirty laundry” has not been aired to the public. Also, by simply throwing in a candidate that no one has ever heard before, many citizens will think she was selected more for her gender than her actual intelligence.
Will the choice of Sarah Palin go down as the worst political blunder in history or the best one-two punch to the Democratic Party? Only time will tell. Nevertheless, certain questions must be asked of the Republican Party. Was Sarah Palin picked as the vice presidential running mate simply to “shock and aw” the public? Or is she really the “great reformer” we are being promised will change Washington? Whatever the answer, Sarah Palin defies traditional politics. However in this age of rapid change, politics in 2008 defy most “normal” conventions.
Respectfully,
Mr. Madison
Olympic Politics
Written: 04/18/2008
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 25, 2008
After leafing through the previous issue of the Spectator, I became worried about America's mindset. Perhaps it is ignorant for me to think that the Olympics have always been fueled by political rhetoric or that Americans gloss over international problems concerning human rights. Human rights, which I might add, that have a direct impact over international unity. Looking back, I began to think about the first Olympic boycott. It happened in 1956, when the Olympic Games were held Melbourne. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, supported the boycott, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. In a nutshell, the uprising in Hungary involved a spur-of-the-moment national revolt against their Soviet-imposed government policies. If Soviet repression of a nations uprising will cause an acceptable Olympic boycott, why is the Tibetan protest any different?
Let's take a look at another example. The 1980 Moscow Olympic Games were protested by 65 nations, due to cold war tensions and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Though Afghani freedom may be hard concept for many Americans to swallow, America and many other countries were angered by the Soviet Union and their blatant disregard for human rights. This boycott lowered the number of competing nations to 81, lower than that of the 1956 games. My last example shows how politics is directly involved with the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games did not become a mega event until 1932 when they were hosted in Los Angeles California. The games, believe it or not were politically driven and intended to bring the economically hard pressed Los Angeles area out of depression. The 1932 games were witnessed by German ambassadors, who in turn brought the games to Berlin in 1936. It is hard not to associate the 1936 Olympics with a runner named Jesse Owens. However the 1936 games were more than just an American underdog and a tale of patriotism. The games brought economic prosperity and credibility to Berlin. Hitler even sought to create the largest Olympic stadium in the world, but as we all know World War II put a stop to that.
Sure the Olympics call for a "fun" evening, where people can sit inside and watch athletes play tennis for hours. Heck, I myself am a huge fan of the Modern Pentathlon, but please America open your eyes. Stop living in some ethnocentric fantasy and learn more about what is going on in the world. Human rights are being taken from people and all we do is sit on our hands and wonder what time the table tennis event will start. I am not a liberal person and I am not a conservative person - I am a practical person. People should be allowed to protest for something they believe in, even if it is during a torch run. As Malcolm X once said: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
With The Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
And by the way the cartoon captioned above the article on page 10 was a total contradiction to the ethos of the editorial. It obviously showed Chinese Olympiad killing a Tibetan monk. Why would anyone use that picture and expect people not to protest? Perhaps next time a picture of an American flag wrapped around a baby, wearing a cowboy hat and eating a hotdog would be more suitable. However that is just a suggestion.
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 25, 2008
After leafing through the previous issue of the Spectator, I became worried about America's mindset. Perhaps it is ignorant for me to think that the Olympics have always been fueled by political rhetoric or that Americans gloss over international problems concerning human rights. Human rights, which I might add, that have a direct impact over international unity. Looking back, I began to think about the first Olympic boycott. It happened in 1956, when the Olympic Games were held Melbourne. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, supported the boycott, because of the repression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. In a nutshell, the uprising in Hungary involved a spur-of-the-moment national revolt against their Soviet-imposed government policies. If Soviet repression of a nations uprising will cause an acceptable Olympic boycott, why is the Tibetan protest any different?
Let's take a look at another example. The 1980 Moscow Olympic Games were protested by 65 nations, due to cold war tensions and the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Though Afghani freedom may be hard concept for many Americans to swallow, America and many other countries were angered by the Soviet Union and their blatant disregard for human rights. This boycott lowered the number of competing nations to 81, lower than that of the 1956 games. My last example shows how politics is directly involved with the Olympic Games.
The Olympic Games did not become a mega event until 1932 when they were hosted in Los Angeles California. The games, believe it or not were politically driven and intended to bring the economically hard pressed Los Angeles area out of depression. The 1932 games were witnessed by German ambassadors, who in turn brought the games to Berlin in 1936. It is hard not to associate the 1936 Olympics with a runner named Jesse Owens. However the 1936 games were more than just an American underdog and a tale of patriotism. The games brought economic prosperity and credibility to Berlin. Hitler even sought to create the largest Olympic stadium in the world, but as we all know World War II put a stop to that.
Sure the Olympics call for a "fun" evening, where people can sit inside and watch athletes play tennis for hours. Heck, I myself am a huge fan of the Modern Pentathlon, but please America open your eyes. Stop living in some ethnocentric fantasy and learn more about what is going on in the world. Human rights are being taken from people and all we do is sit on our hands and wonder what time the table tennis event will start. I am not a liberal person and I am not a conservative person - I am a practical person. People should be allowed to protest for something they believe in, even if it is during a torch run. As Malcolm X once said: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
With The Utmost Respect,
Mr. Madison
And by the way the cartoon captioned above the article on page 10 was a total contradiction to the ethos of the editorial. It obviously showed Chinese Olympiad killing a Tibetan monk. Why would anyone use that picture and expect people not to protest? Perhaps next time a picture of an American flag wrapped around a baby, wearing a cowboy hat and eating a hotdog would be more suitable. However that is just a suggestion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
