Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 2, 2003)
NEWS 'HE BATTALIOK es tip wnership rules even aid repeal or mo# determined tobeiM the public interest iges proposed since remained unfinished nt back to the FCC challenges. 2 is considering®- tion to let acompan; ion stations reach® of U.S. households. iuI also may ease a on local TV owner- owing one compans television stationsii th at least six com- I three stations in the ;s such as New Yort igeles. r change would ell- restrictions on a sin- ry owning combina- v'spapers and TV and ns in the samecitj, : newspaper compa- is Tribune Co. and . favor. iper-owed televisioi gram more and bet- d public affairs than stations,” said Mi resident of the Association of irp. and Viacom Inc, is CBS and UPN, nefit from a higher V ownership cap rgers have left them current 35 perceni e companies, along rersuaded an appeals ear to reject the cur- 1 send it back to the ision. ic Net: FCC fcc.gov says > > ^aida a press conference udi capital late don’t want to gel tails because the is are ongoing, bin ype of undertaking allmarks of anal- ion.” ilomat said Muelk! ay in Saudi Arabia >nday. Moroccan labat said the FBI expected to travel 'ithin days for talks ohammed VI. after the Riyadh Moroccan city of as rocked by near- )us bombings that )ple, including 12 iblanca bombing uspected of finan- dor al-Qaida lead- )f Morocco, U.S- said on condition :ed Sunday if a een established ic Saudi and sicks, Mueller told s too early to say of 219-11. sd in the javelin," Ifier. He’s a young I’m very happy for paid his dues and ake didn’t perform onal meet and that ay, Pantoja battled clocking. Id Marcinkiewicz. >ut the place. She o do it. She’s not ■e down.” e national meet in joints in the team while Ralston was said. “He had his ' the year. He just final throw would getting to the net! ey did that.” Opinion The Battalion Page 5 • Monday, June 2, 2003 A SIGN OF THE TIMES Unsound diversity initiatives at Times led to Jayson Blair plagiarism fiasco T he story of Jayson Blair must not simply be dis missed as the story of a journalistic bad seed who finally got weeded out by the system. It is, instead, a tale of political correctness run amok at a place formerly considered a bastion of credible, albeit some what liberal, journalism: The New York Times. It is also the story of diversity initiatives and affirmative action being taken to ridiculous, even criminal, levels in society at the expense of the truth and journalistic integrity. As a journalist, Blair was a liar and a fraud. He was also black, a qualification his editor found so great, it apparently negated these flaws. But a great debate has arisen. Was Blair allowed to stay with The Times for four years in spite of his mistakes simply because he was black? Absolutely. Unless you’ve been digging your way out of a collapsed bunker in Iraq, you’re likely familiar with the Blair debacle. He was a hotshot reporter for the University of Maryland’s student newspaper. The Diamondback, before being picked up by The Times in its internship program. The Times reported last month that this internship program was “being used in a large part to help the paper diversify its newsroom.” This is where the drama escalates. According to The Times, during the next four years, Blair plagiarized dozens of sources, interviewed ficti tious people or lied about talk ing to actual people, and claimed to be reporting from locations he was never at or that didn’t exist. In all, there were at least 50 journalistic atrocities commit ted by Blair alone. More instances are being investigated. As Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter put it, “Blair’s record of inaccuracies, lies and distortions made him a candidate for either immediate dismissal or his own regular column on the op-ed page.” Most people are probably happy not to see the latter. But the facts are clear. Blair’s decisions and actions lacked ethics and integrity. As a reporter, he cared only about himself and furthering his career at the expense of the truth — the one thing every reporter should hold dear. Then why did The Times keep him around? One would think the reports of his many mistakes would follow him and even overshadow his race. Wrong again. As it turns out, The Times’ Editor in Chief Howell Raines was well aware of Blair’s pen chant for lying and love of deceit, but was too much in love with the diversity Blair’s race brought to the newsroom to take disciplinary action. When asked why he continually promoted Blair ahd covered up his professional problems, Raines said he didn’t want to “stigmatize” him. God forbid anyone knows that a Times’ front page reporter is a journal istic fraud. Just because he’s black doesn’t make it OK. This is the type of flawed thinking Times’ management apparently operated under. Columnist Ann Coulter even suggests changing the Times’ slogan from “All the GEORGE DEUTSCH News That’s Fit to Print” to “The New York Times: Now With Even More Black People. Clearly, she jests, but maybe she’s on to something. After all, The Times’ manage ment was doing nothing but adver tising its diversity by keeping a black writer on its front page even amid multiple incidents of deception. Only, the plan didn’t work. The Times’ attempts at diversity clearly failed, and as a newspaper, it will likely never regain its reputation of prestige. This is the expense of flawed diver sity initiatives. This is the price of affirmative action. This issue will con tinue to be argued in print, in television and throughout the halls of academia for years But what did the man himself, Jayson Blair, have to say about his actions? In an inter view last month with the weekly New York Observer. Blair rightly said, “I am a symbol of what’s wrong with The New York Times and what’s been wrong with The New York Times for a long time. Anyone who tells you that my race didn’t play a role in my career at The New York Times is lying to you.” George Deutsch is a senior journalism major. Graphic by Ruben DeLuna. Sharon buying time (4T~thi n k that the idea of I keeping 3.5 million JLPalestinians under occu pation is the worst thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and also for the Israeli economy.” This recent quote by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the Israeli newspaper Marriv indicates a total change in the Israeli government’s perspective on the current con flict in Gaza and the West Bank. Using the word “occupation” in reference to its military operations might give hope to Palestinians and the Bush Administration that Israel might pull out soon and end its direct influence on the areas, paving the way for the success of the “Roadmap for Peace.” But upon closer inspection, it looks like Sharon is simply playing for time to keep the status quo. Sharon is making promises in negotiations that he may not be able or willing to keep. One difficulty he will face is getting his own party to back the policy change. After his statements about ending the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, Sharon faced criti cism from within his own party, including ministers in his government, according to the BBC. Sharon’s Likud party has traditionally been quick to take defensive action in favor of increased Israeli settlements. According to the BBC, freezing Israeli settlement expansion is a key part of the first phase of the Roadmap and parallel progress is expected on all parts of the plan, meaning Israelis and Palestinians must both show progress. On the matter of settlements, it would be a total change in policy for the current Israeli government to stop expan sion, and would alienate its right wing polit ical base. But the continuing combat in the region is the worst sticking point. Israel originally main tained that combat had to stop for any peace process to continue. But the new Roadmap calls for concurrent progress on security issues instead of a Palestinian-centered approach. Again, Sharon’s offer to pull Israeli troops out of occupied territories and allow Palestinian security forces to take over and pursue groups such as Hamas seems to fit the plan. These poli cy changes look like they follow the changes outlined for Israel in President Bush’s Roadmap. But they will be hard to implement due to domestic Israeli or Palestinian resistance, and might be just a play for time by Sharon. Sharon’s concessions might really be made DAVID SHOEMAKER in the interests of peace, but it is more likely he is hoping to buy time so the status quo, or some thing similarly benefiting Israel, might emerge from the process. The two biggest reasons why Sharon might escape his promis es would be a loss of interest on the part of the United States or actions of Palestinians outside the official government to derail the process. Sharon may think that if he can draw out the process long enough, new foreign or domestic problems will force the Bush Administration to move its primary attention elsewhere. So if he can just weather the interest of the United States for a year or so without any real changes, he stands a chance of never making any changes. Sharon may find himself let off the hook by Yasser Arafat or militant groups such as Hamas. The Bush Administration has empha sized it no longer wishes to deal with Arafat in the peace process, although, according to an article from The Houston Chronicle, he “has sought to inject himself into the process.” Arafat might prove to be a stumbling block for peace again by trying to place himself in a position to derail the process unless his demands, whatever they are, are met. His attempts to be involved will weaken new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmaud Abbas’ hope to convince the Israelis that he is dealing in good faith. But an even greater threat is the specter of groups such as Hamas derailing the process. Unlike Arafat or Sharon, their negotiations are only bound by their rage toward Israel. In the long term the only solution is the destruction of such groups. But in the short term, they need to be convinced to cease hostilities. Fortunately, according to an article from The Chronicle, Abbas said Hamas may be convinced to agree to a cease-fire very soon. But as long as such groups exist, there is a possibility they will conduct operations that will give Sharon an out to drop out of the peace plan. Sharon’s promise's may be simple lip serv ice to the Bush Administration’s plans. But his play for time may backfire if his own people and the Palestinians really want peace more than he does. David Shoemaker is a junior management major. Sex segregation flawed Middle school sacrificing sociological growth I t is at school that children are first intro duced into society. Throughout this experience they’re educated not only on the basics of academics, but on society and life. However, Kimberly Middle School in Kimberly, Idaho, has placed a roadblock on the path to higher understanding and has done so at the expense of the students’ sociological development. Last year, following a recent nationwide trend, a system of gender-segregated classes was implemented in the school’s sixth-grade classes, and now has plans of expanding into higher grades, according to cnn.com. The school adminis trators claim the change has alleviated discipline problems and distractions in classrooms. Administrators have ignored the greater possibility that this system is detrimental toward learning methods of interaction between the sexes, as well as simultaneously forcing students into sexual stereotypes instead of providing equal education for all. The reason behind the change toward single-sex class es is that it was thought that boys tend to be stronger in areas of math and science and benefit from individual study, whereas girls require a stronger emphasis because they are gen erally weaker in this area, according to cnn.com. By grouping students based on gen der stereotypes, administrators are confining them into the image created for them by the administration instead of allow ing them to perform individual ly. The concept of placing stu dents in classes by their ability instead of their sex apparently didn’t occur to these administra tors, who are sim ply pleased that they don’t have to deal with as much talking during classes. Another supposed advantage of this plan was to lower the amount of distractions in the classroom to make a more com fortable learning environment at an age where many students are embarrassed to express them selves when around the oppo site sex, according to cnn.com. However, if a school’s adminis trators want to prepare students for the real world, or even pre pare junior high students for high school, they must under stand that a discomfort, such as having to speak in front of members of the opposite sex, is minor compared to later chal lenges in life. It would be ridiculous if classrooms were divided by race or religious beliefs to make students feel more com fortable, but for some reason, gender segregation is a concept teachers and administrators approve of. This system only throws the quality of education for a loop. Instead of focusing on tech niques to teach material more effectively or targeting the learning styles of individual stu dents, the teachers and adminis trators of Kimberly Middle School have forced students into stereotypical roles that more than likely do not repre sent many of the students. Society and education have pro gressed past the point of these confines, but educators’ minds obviously have not. Furthermore, the most evi dentiary instance of this pro gram’s uselessness is that there is “no measurable way to judge if the system works,” according to an Associated Press article, and no distinct difference of improvement in the grades of students within the segregated system and those of students who previously had integrated classes. Had the single-sex classes produced a dramatic increase, the sacrifice of social development could be consid ered. However, the lack of ben efits in any aspect besides fewer class disruptions suggests that the school needs to train teach ers to deal with discipline prob lems and not divide classes by gender. School administrators prance around a new trend every few years, protesting that if all students wear uniforms, or if different standardized tests are used, or if the class rooms were segregated by gen der, then the difficulties of edu cating children would miracu lously disappear. The doctrine of “separate but equal” in education was abandoned in 1954 when the Supreme Court ruled it uncon stitutional. Separating classes by gender is only slightly dif ferent than by the basis of skin color. Title IX instructs extra curricular activities and sports should get the same funding for boys and girls teams. However, Kimberly Middle School has ignored legislation from the past and chosen to harm its students for the sake of convenience. Sara Foley is a sophomore journalism major. SARA FOLEY