| Class Chat
The Faculty Senate approved a proposal last spring made by the Academic Affairs Committee of the House of Student Representatives to institute a new online program called FrogFinder. It will provide information about professors and the courses they teach to students through FrogNet, the online service that allows students to register online. Ten years later, they're trying it again. If all goes well, FrogFinder will be available for Fall 2000 registration and will help students choose their classes based on the information provided by professors. Students are sure to benefit from the availability of this new online service. As the world and the university make more technological advances, it is only fitting that students have more educational options online. But students should also be able to enter their own views on professors and their classes. Students often discuss professors and courses to avoid scheduling more difficult classes than they can handle in one semester. An online forum in which students could comment on professors' teaching styles and the content of classes would make registration less of a hassle for students and their advisers. To provide this forum would be to widen the circle of peers that is so influential in the decision-making process. Also, students would begin their semester prepared for the course load and be ready for the semester ahead. And if students know what to expect when they come into a new class, they would probably be less likely to drop that class. FrogFinder is the first step in a process that can greatly improve the registration process. Let's take it one step further to provide this forum for students.
Republicans rule minorities out Score another victory for those Republicans hoping to prove their perceived dislike of minorities is a reality. Two weeks ago, the Senate rejected a black nominee for the federal bench on a strict party-line vote. All 54 Republican senators voted against Ronnie White, the first African-American to sit on the Missouri Supreme Court, for a federal judgeship. It was the first defeat for a White House judicial candidate since President Reagan's Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. White had been nominated by President Clinton 27 months ago and seemingly had all his credentials in order. But a long record of dissention on death penalty rulings was supposedly his Republican litmus test, which he failed with flying colors. Color, of course, is the operative word. Republicans, right-wingers, conservatives - however compassionate they claim to be - have an extensive record of being one-sided with decisions that affect minorities seeking judicial nominations. The bipartisan, if there is such a thing, Constitution Project found that during the 1997-98 Senate session, white nominees were accepted or rejected within an average of 186 days, but for minorities it took 246 days. The rejection rate was 14 percent for the 92 white nominees and 35 percent for the 31 minority nominees. In fact, Richard Paez, a Mexican-American, is still waiting for a letter of acceptance or rejection after being nominated more than three years ago for a federal appeals court vacancy. Frederica Massiah-Jackson, who would have been the first black woman to sit on the federal bench in Philadelphia, withdrew her nomination days before a vote she was destined to lose. Senate Republicans considered her "soft" on crime. Tom Daschle, Senate Democratic leader from South Dakota, offered this: "The vote tells minority judicial candidates, 'Do not apply.'" Indeed. Republicans offer lukewarm explanations that Clinton's nominees tend to be too liberal and accuse others of playing the race card. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the Senate majority leader, said people who made accusations of racism had impugned the integrity of the Senate and should be ashamed. Lott should heed his own words. Earlier this year, Lott was found to have associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist group that descended from the White Citizens Councils. This same organization was unabashedly against minorities who struggled for their civil rights in the Deep South in the 1950s and 1960s. In a speech to the CCC, Lott said, "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." Bob Barr, R-Ga., also the House impeachment manager during Clinton's flirtation with dismissal, made the keynote speech at the group's convention, but claimed ignorance when his ties with these de-sheeted Klansmen were revealed. He admitted speaking to them but said he had "no firsthand knowledge of the group's (white supremacist) views." These are the men the Republicans have chosen as leaders? With Republicans as the House and Senate majority, what does that say about those who fall in behind such "dignitaries"? What nation are certain Americans trying to build? The Confederacy, perhaps. It may be unfair of me to label all Republicans as racists, but their choice of leaders definitely calls into question the platform of the Grand Old Party. They are slowly drifting past the right wing into the nether regions of inequality. I can say for certain that the concerns of minorities, including women, aren't a high priority on the Republican to-do list, not that other political parties are particularly interested in the welfare of people other than elitist, white, inordinately male constituents. But Republicans do, at best, a half-hearted job at disguising their prejudices. They are traditionally hostile toward African-Americans, inhospitable to immigrants, openly indignant with homosexuals and critical of those who aren't Christian. Are they the face of America? I would hope not. America often boasts of its tolerance and diversity when speaking of China and Cuba. What better place than the halls of American justice to reflect that creed? Or is it that the only black people Republicans want to see in court are defendants?
Joel Anderson is a senior news-editorial journalism major from Missouri City, Texas. He can be reached at (jdanderson@delta.is.tcu.edu). Gender a real, but forgotten, issue in American politics After Elizabeth Dole dropped out of the presidential race, many critics said she didn't really have a platform and her only real theme was that she was making history as a female candidate. Some critics don't seem to think gender is an issue. These people don't understand what it is like to be underrepresented in political office. Many women would have voted for Dole largely because she was a woman. Similarly, many black people might vote for a black candidate largely because he or she is black. Voting for someone on the basis on his or her gender or ethnicity may seem arbitrary and even wrong. But the fact is that ethnicity and gender influence a candidate's platform significantly. This influence is not innate; rather it is formed by people's experience in society. One shouldn't expect a female president to exhibit a "feminine" leadership style due to biological reasons. If ethnicity and gender don't biologically determine a candidate's views, why is it important to have candidates of varying ethnic backgrounds and both genders? In this highly stratified society, people are viewed and treated differently. A person's ethnicity and gender, as well as other factors, determine how the person interacts in society. A person's life experiences are shaped by these societal factors, and people's views reflect their differing experiences in society. Women experience America differently than men, and this shows up sometimes in the differing legislative agendas. For too long, the agenda has been set by men. As more women have entered Congress, we have seen shifting emphases reflecting their background and concerns. Greater representation has broadened the political agenda and brought attention to concerns that may have been neglected without it. Dole's dropping out has narrowed possible representation for women in the White House. Representation means more than endorsing someone who shares similar views on issues - it means someone who represents you. While many people might be able to adequately represent my views on issues, they don't really represent me. A candidate doesn't have to be exactly like me to represent me - 20-year-olds can't even run for president. Gender and ethnicity are broad enough categories that it is justifiable to demand representation in these two areas. America is a representative democracy, and much of the population isn't being represented. While women and minorities have made gains in the political realm, the presidency seems to be the ultimate glass ceiling. Because the presidency seems out of reach, and many are talking of settling for less. Some people, including Republican candidates, have hinted Dole would make a good vice presidential candidate. "You shouldn't ask for too much," they seem to be saying. "Give the country time to get used to women in high political office," they reassure her. Dole didn't want to be vice president; she wanted to be president. She wanted to lead the country - not be a tool to halt the growing Republican gender gap by capturing female votes as a vice presidential candidate. The idea of a woman as vice president but not president stings because of the traditional idea that women are better as helpers or supporters rather than leaders. This country has had time to adjust to women in positions of power. Time is up. It is not too much to ask that representation be present at the highest levels. Americans' involvement in politics is sadly lacking, and many citizens don't feel they have a stake in the political process. Candidates who represent their constituents can give them a better voice and more active role in government. Let us not downplay the roles gender and ethnicity play in shaping our political views. We don't need to be embarrassed that our main motivation for voting someone might not be a shared position on some social issue. Issues are important, and too much emphasis has been placed on personality over substance in recent elections, but gender is a real issue. Female voters - more than half the total voters - might find a candidate that understands some of their concerns, but what we really want is a female voice articulating our experience in America.
Tara Pope is a senior religion major from Longview. She can be reached at (tpope13@aol.com). Auction of 'knowledge' is really sophisticated plagiarism If you're a student who is tired of actually working hard for your own grades, lend me your ears. Writing research papers is now a thing of the past. If you are a wealthy college student, as so many are, you can buy your own research papers at (www.Knexa.com), an Internet auction site similar to the popular Ebay. Don't worry, as illicit as the techniques may be, they're perfectly legal. According to the Web site, Knexa.com "provides a dedicated marketplace for knowledge where the market drives the price." Translation: "We are a cyber paper mill." Since Sept. 1, Knexa.com has been auctioning off students' "knowledge." Such knowledge can include video and audio, photographs, and text in the form of research papers, advice and theses. Students who would buy papers from such a site and pass them off as their own not only have no integrity, but they are also getting gypped. The notes and research provided by Knexa.com that can cost students much needed money are available at any university library - for free. It is, as the Web site says in a highly cheesy infomercial-ish way that makes Amway seem legitimate, an auction of knowledge. The Web site is designed like an AT&T commercial, quoting virtual nobodies in order to appear legitimate. It is a sophisticated version of conventional plagiarism Web sites such as (www.cheating.com) and (www.schoolsucks.com). Knexa.com boasts the quote from one Rutherford D. Rogers: "We're drowning in information and starving for knowledge." Translation: "It sounds better when we call it a hunger for knowledge instead of plagiarism." The site has caused university professors nationwide to raise questions about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of students taking advantage of such a service. The site's main selling point is pathetic in and of itself. As is featured in highlighted font on the Web site, "It takes work to create knowledge. Knexa.com provides a new forum for individuals to benefit from their work and the work of others." Translation: "You're a loser if you're in college to actually work for your own grades." The Web site should at least stop trying to appear so legitimate and post in large letters: "We can help you cheat." True, students benefit from each other's "knowledge" all the time. They share notes with peers or read each other's papers for insight. Usually such sharing of knowledge is beneficial and helps students synthesize their own ideas. True, Knexa.com could serve a similar purpose. But instead of being an effective tool for research, many students will use the site as a crutch. It could be an expedient way to pass another's work off as original thoughts. While the intent of Knexa.com may not be to facilitate cheating, it inevitably becomes useful for this very reason. Students buy into such deals because it is convenient. It is easy to buy information instead of taking the time to research it. It is easy to buy a research paper instead of writing an original one. It is very easy, very wrong and entirely lawful. Lawfulness does not translate into legitimacy.
Sheila Bapat is a columnist for the Arizona Daily Wildcat at the University of Arizona. |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |