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