| Pencils Down News quiz tests your knowledge
On Sept. 15, we offered Current Events 101, a crash course on national and international news after 50 students said, "Huh?" in response to a Purple Poll question about East Timor. You've had an entire week to do the research and to compile a list of your sources. Don't bother with trying to keep the test for your files. We make new ones every semester. Here, at last, are the long-awaited answers to the news quiz.
1. Who is suspected of the recent bombings in Russia? Answer B) Islamic militants If you guessed Southern Methodist University students, nice try, but not the right answer this time. 2. What is the cause of the war in East Timor? Answer A) Independence of East Timor from Indonesia 3. What is the name of the hurricane about to hit Florida? Answer C) Floyd 4. Which of the presidential candidates used to be a pro-basketball player? Answer C) Bill Bradley
And there you have it. If you answered four correctly, congratulations. Consider yourself a current events guru. If you got less than two correct, consider watching the news or reading a newspaper every once in awhile. All kidding aside, it's important to keep abreast of current events. How else will you know whom to vote for next year? Or why we might send American troops to other countries? These stories do affect you. At the risk of sounding like a lame ride at Disney World, it's a small world after all. Get to know what's going on in it.
Darwinism deserves time in class As if the poor children were not at enough of a disadvantage just for being from Kansas. The Kansas State Board of Education has neglected any mention of evolution in its new requirements for the teaching of biology at Kansas' public schools. This is like teaching U. S. Government without mentioning the Constitution. Evolution is the fundamental unifying theme of biology. At least that is what the National Association of Biology Teachers said in its official response to the Kansas state board's decision. The newest argument against teaching evolution is that since evolution is only a theory, it should not be taught in public schools. If this is true then the atomic theory of matter, the genetic theory of inheritance and the theory of relativity should not be taught. After all, they are only theories. A scientific theory is not a conjecture or a supposition. A scientific theory is based on facts learned from perception, meticulous experimentation and reason. This is in contrast to such unscientific ways of thinking, such as mysticism and religion, which rely on faith and belief. Science and religion utilize different ways of thinking. One way is no better than the other, but they are different. Religion and science answer different questions about the world. While science tries to tell us the "what," religion attempts to answer the "why." How could there possibly be a conflict between religion and science? This conflict is similar to when you argue for hours with somebody, only to figure out that you had been debating two different things. You just misunderstood each other. The creationists' attack on evolution reflects a misunderstanding about the processes of scientific inquiry. Scientists are not on some profane crusade to disprove creation; they are just trying to make sense of what human perception tells them about the world. Many examples of evolution can be seen in nature - besides fossil evidence, which can be interpreted in many ways. For example, bacteria are known to evolve into drug-resistant strains in the presence of antibiotics. This is a perfect example of evolution due to natural selection. Those bacteria that adapt to their harsh environment will survive, while those that do not are destined to die a violent, protealytic death. If this is not an example of evolution through natural selection, then what is? However, observing a microscopic single-celled organism morph into a drug-resistant form is far from proving that humans have evolved from an ancient primate ancestor. This is where the major division has formed between creation and evolution. It is inconceivable for people who believe that humans are God's chosen species to believe that we may be the descendants of some distant monkey forebear. This does not mean, however, that children should be deprived of the opportunity to learn about the ideas of science. We should not forget that less than 300 years ago the concept of a heliocentric solar system was also considered incompatible with religious doctrine. To quote Martin Luther, "(Copernicus) wants to prove that the earth moves and goes round as the Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun stand still and not the earth." Or to quote Psalms 93:1, "The world is also established that it cannot be moved." Is the Kansas Board of Education also considering withholding references to the idea that the earth and planets revolve around the sun? After all, it is only a theory. The omission of references to evolution in Kansas' science classes harms the children of Kansas in several ways. It places them at a disadvantage on college entrance exams and in introductory level college science courses. It also robs them of learning about the critical thinking skills that have been employed in the process of trying to verify and further understand evolution. We must not allow the children of our public schools to be the victims of our quarrels over creation and evolution. Science and scientific ways of thinking should be taught in the science classroom, and if parents choose to teach religious beliefs, their children should be taught in the home or at church. It is important that children be taught the ways of both science and religion, as well as the differences between them. In this way children will be able to learn as much as possible about the world around them and the people who inhabit it.
Zachary Norris is a senior biology major from Long Beach, Calif. Plight of 'lefty' overlooked It is so easy for us to be offended - in reality, every one of us belongs to a group that is negatively stereotyped. Especially on a campus where tolerance is emphasized so passionately, it is easy to take offense at the slightest word or accidental insult, real or imagined. Well, it's my turn. If we are going to be so quick to judge the actions of others, I want in. Because before long, everyone is going to be pointing fingers, and there will only be one person left, some middle-aged middle-class Protestant white guy who gets the blame for everything, the scapegoat of political correctness. Lest that happen to me, I have found my minority group. My people have been oppressed for centuries. Longer than any prejudice against race, gender or Greek affiliation, a much more acceptable form of discrimination has been practiced: oppression of the left-handed (we prefer to be called alternative-hand users, thank you very much). Hand preference has long been an excuse for prejudice. In many societies alternative-hand users were believed to be in league with the devil. Up until World War II, schools in this country forced children to write right-handed. Well-meaning but right-handed parents teach their alternative-hand using children to do things such as bat and throw with the wrong hand. Even the language is biased: If "left" is opposite of "right," and "right" means "correct," does that make "left" "wrong?" I don't think so. TCU, for all its effort to be tolerant, is very handist. It's subtle, but it's there. No one openly comes out and says they're against left-handers. There is no left-bashing or left-crimes. But the prejudice is still there. Don't think so? Look at the desks in your classroom. All right-handed. Every single computer in the library has its mouse on the right side. There are no left-handed support groups or scholarships or programs. Our oppression is so mainstream the same students who would never think of saying anything politically incorrect have no problem asserting right supremacy. "Oh," they ask, "You're left-handed?" You don't fool me. I know what you are really thinking - "Ha, inferior sub-human. I can't believe that our centuries of efforts to eliminate you through subtle but extremely cunning acts of prejudice have failed. I will just have to stand here and look at you funny so you will leave me and my right-handed friends alone, child of Satan." Well, no more. We alternative-hand users must stick together despite the man's attempts to put us down. We will find and unite with other southpaws to form a small but powerful subculture. We spot the signs our oppressors don't know to look for - the watch on the right hand, the pen smudges from dragging the heel of your hand across your notes, the people who sit at the ends of tables so they don't bump elbows. We are the only ones who understand what it is to be left in a right world. Left-handers of the world, unite! It is time that we stop sitting idly by and start fighting for our rights (no, make that our lefts). Now is the day we take the world from the rightists. So be warned, righties. We are coming. Some day, alternative-hand users will control society and subject you to unspeakable acts of prejudice and discrimination. But this will never happen. We are not so caught up in ourselves that we imagine oppression. We left-handers learned long ago that majority rules. Things will always be right-oriented in this world. The best we can do is learn to adapt - which we have done. In today's victim society, left-handed people have come to terms with being different and moved on. In doing so, perhaps they have set a good example for the majority of today's victims: Get over it. Because there really are people who are discriminated against, people who truly have a harder time than the rest of us. But for every one of those people, there are many more who like to think they are, people who imagine that every word or action is prejudiced, in some way or another, against them. The great tragedy of today's society is that these people trivialize the plight of those who really face it. With an onslaught of imaginary victims, it's easy to miss the real ones. Learn from the left-handers. Looks like they were right all along.
John-Mark Day is a freshman religion major from St. Joseph, Mo. He can be reached at (jmday2@delta.is.tcu.edu). Letters to the editor True activism missing on campus Upon reading the headline "Student faces fines after protest," I was excited by the possibility that some true social activism might be taking place on our usually apathetic campus. Then I continued reading and discovered the impetus for Omar Villafranca's passionate display - the Skiff's decision not to publish his roommate's article in support of TCU women posing for Playboy! Where were all the protesters when it came out that our bookstore was selling garments produced by child labor? Apparently that sort of thing isn't worth a demonstration. Considering last Tuesday's Purple Poll revealing our lack of awareness concerning East Timor, it's not surprising. But hey, at least we have people like Michael Kruse and Omar Villafranca working hard to get the truth out about issues of REAL importance. What a comforting thought.
Crista C. Williams, senior psychology major
Generalizations about actors hurtful I tried to read the article Steve Steward wrote on celebrity actors advocating public causes, but I got sidetracked by the line of cocaine that was sitting on the mirror in my living room. Obviously, I never finished the article. You see, I am an actor, so according to Steward, I am a victim of bad fashion and drug dependency. What Steward fails to realize is that sweeping generalizations are hurtful, no matter what the issue. Steward had many of us in the theatre department stewing all day. Steward feels like actors are given an excess of money and free time with which to pursue these trivial causes. Maybe, and I am just an actor here, they are using their fame for a cause they feel is worthwhile. Later he argues that Sting and Pamela Anderson Lee "have been so out of touch with those of us who aren't necessarily pretty or lucky enough to work in Hollywood " I forgot, was it Sting's or Lee's responsibility to call Steward this week to check up on him? As sorry as I am to report this, more people will listen to Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger than will ever listen to Steward.
Richard Stubblefield, senior theatre-acting/performance major
Criticism about actors misguided In his editorial titled "Actors should stick to acting," Steve Steward writes that most "entertainers are so stupid or disengaged from common life that they have no place to give their opinion," and that "taking them seriously is a hard pill to swallow." The word "entertainers" is broad, but his text seems to narrow down the group under attack to successful, wealthy and famous personalities in the entertainment industry. How does Steward justify his assumption that most of them are stupid? Is there a level of success or income that can only be surpassed by the supremely ignorant? Is he aware that actors study literature, psychology, movement, history and diction in order to prepare them for every role they take? It is also regrettable that Steward only supports causes that will cost him nothing. All worthwhile causes come at a cost. That celebrities use the excessive attention that the public focuses on them to raise awareness of issues they find worthy may seem self-important or frivolous. Considering their options, however, it might just be the most sensible thing they can do. Let's face it: We are more likely to follow the example of celebrities than of our parents, ministers or teachers. Unfortunately, if stars hadn't made us aware, many of us would not know that we are creating more garbage than the earth has space for.
Kathleen Anderson Milne, post-baccalaureate student, department of theatre |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |