DIVERSITY POLICY IN QUESTION
To the Editor:
Before enrolling at USM students may be pleased to find that there is a discrimination policy in their contract and on most pieces of literature published by the university. This policy was issued by The President’s Office and the Office of Campus Diversity and Equity in 2002 and can be found at http://www.usm.maine.edu/~eeo/civilityanddiversity.htm. Although this policy is well written and well intended it appears to be becoming nothing more than bureaucratic lip service.
On December 2, 2003 representatives from the Defense Language Institute (DLI) came to USM to encourage students to consider enrolling into one of their language programs. Under most circumstances having corporate reps. come to the
university does nothing more then take away a few minutes from class time with professors giving the time and date of the advertisement. But in this case the school was in breach of its diversity policy. The organization which came to this school has repeatedly discriminated against homosexuals and has violated the much debated Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy, (Portland Press Herald, Dec. 04, 2003). Yes, the DLI has a huge need for translators and other linguist majors. We see this on the news quite often. But what is truly amazing is that the DLI has fired 37 linguists over the past two years for no other reason
then the sexuality of the linguists. The four most recent of which were Arabic translators. Paragraph three, sentence two, of the Civility and Diversity policy states that “USM rejects acts of discrimination or harassment based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, veteran status, and political beliefs.” If this is true, then why do we allow employers
to sift through us for the best and brightest in the field, and yet discriminate against us on the basis of our sexuality? This paradox is unacceptable and an embarrassment to the university.
Unless we wish for our reputation in regards to diversity to become tarnished by hypocrisy, we need to stop our relationships with organizations that blatantly alienate those whom we claim not to discriminate against!
With full respect,
Joseph Thompson
Sophomore/Math
************************************************************
DOWN WITH “DOWN WITH SCHLOCK & AWFUL.”
To the Editor:
I’ll preface by saying that I am by no means a “conservative” person. However, if Dan Goldstein and his article “Down with Schlock and Awful” represent the “liberal” viewpoint, I would like to be counted out of this seeming “minority” of people. I respect Dan Goldstein for having the courage and fortitude to say what he believes, which usually concerns subjects that are universal, e.g., the topic of drinking and alcoholism, or the over-hashed concept of “the death of the liberal media.”
The reason that I don’t respect Dan Goldstein is that he uses the technique of (what I call) “shock journalism.” This form of reporting is often difficult for the reader, since the intent of the author is blurred. This is also why I consider this column to be ineffectually written. To provide contrast, Michael Moore (amateur filmmaker, most noted for his film Bowling For Columbine) also uses “shock journalism” – but to different ends. His intent is to shock, and awaken opinion and viewpoint from the apathetic and unaware. His words are inflammatory, and his points are invasive. From an interview with Paul Fischer of “Film Monthly,” Moore comments:
“I want you to leave the theater angry, and feeling like you’d better do something. I am kind of pushing your citizen button, activate it to say this is a democracy, this is not a spectator sport, and this is a participatory event. If the people don’t participate, it doesn’t exist.”
And this, I believe, is the difference between Moore & Goldstein. The intent could be perceived as the same: someone could indeed read “Down With Schlock and Awful” and interpret his viewpoint as meant to induce enlightenment, to shake the general public into awareness. It could also be argued that it is one man expressing his opinion. I argue that Mr. Goldstein is using the technique of “shock journalism” simply to exploit. I further argue that he is a hypocrite in naming the column “Down With Schlock & Awful,” and further, for condemning the “conservative” media for feeding the general public with misinformation. Never once have I seen Mr. Goldstein make a significant point that is logically founded. In his article “The liberal media: A dying mythological creature” he very clearly states that the liberal media sources are being slowly silenced. You might remember this phrase from the October 6th Free Press: “Throughout President Bush’s term thus far, “liberal” voices in most branches of the media have been silenced one by one.” Whether or not this is a legitimate statement, it remains unfounded, and so remains an amorphous complaint. And again, as in many of Mr. Goldstein’s articles, the world is only divided into two viewpoints, with no seeming crossover or allowance for human morality, which is patently untrue. And if a person does declare themselves to be “conservative,” I would argue that one may adopt this attitude or stance for one issue in particular, but that the term itself is a broad generalization and nearly unneeded in political arenas. It makes opinion-holders out to be straw caricatures supporting an entire house of societal archetype. Unfortunately, Mr. Goldstein falls victim to this very problem, as well as seemingly taking PRIDE in being labeled thus.
These are only a few issues presented that I have with this column. In short, it is my feeling that, based on what I’ve seen so far, Dan Goldstein perceives many things – especially in the political arena – in a very generalized sense, a “faux-liberal,” or a type of person that wants to be called liberal and yet is not interested in any sort of change. A “conservative liberal,” if you will, or someone who is more interested in simply combating the arguments of a conservative, but not willing to provide any solutions or to do anything about said argument. I propose that Dan learn to debate rationally, with logical examples and well-founded viewpoints that are thought through before expounding them on a soapbox to the general public. In other words, down with “Down With Schlock & Awful” until Mr. Goldstein can reasonably state opinions in a well-informed and less generalized manner.
Chris Gyngell
Junior Theatre major
************************************************************
FREE PRESS FUMBLES
To the Editor:
Can someone explain to me how the Free Press has become more of an editorial paper than an informative campus news source? From what I have seen in since the beginning of this semester has been nothing but personal opinions and rambling from staff. Have any of you actually taken a journalism course? You’re taking away from your writers who actually write news stories. Now onto my two issues for the week:
We’ll start with Dan Goldstein. The only thing he has proven to be good at is making off the wall remarks about things he apparently has no clue on. I use his picture as a dart board on my wall of wanna-be writers. Assign him a real story, and drop Down with Schlock and Awful, because it is downright awful writing. Replace it with a student column written by non-staff members.
Then there is Dan’s piece from last week. Let’s look at part of it.
“While I am very excited about this next election, I am also concerned that many other Americans will relinquish the privilege of voting in favor of doing something menial such as watching TV like they usually do. Voting is one’s obligation to society and there is absolutely no excuse short of being in a coma through Election Day for not doing it, especially in presidential elections.”
Is Dan calling those who do not vote zombies? I mean, I know a lot of people who don’t go to the booths. Some of them are very educated and active in their communities. Dan’s attempt to be witty is downright insulting to the community as a whole. I demand a public apology to those who do not enjoy the right to vote. There was no need for it.
Next is the editor. Buying beer for a student function. How many of them are under 21? While I don’t agree with how you run the Free Press, I had always held a slight bit of respect for you, until that. What action has the Student Senate decided to take? Why did you do it in the first place? Weren’t you aware of the rules?
Jason Libby
English Major
Senior (13 year plan)