nick dean — opinion page designs

Opinion2| WEDNESDAY| JANUARY 26, 2011the Baylor Lariat www.baylorlariat.com

Opinion

The Baylor Lariat welcomes reader

viewpoints through letters to the editor and guest columns. Opinions expressed in the Lariat are not necessarily those of the Baylor admin-

istration, the Baylor Board of Regents or

the Student Publications Board.

the Baylor Lariat |STAFF LIST

Editor in chief Nick Dean* City editor Caty Hirst* News editor James ByersAssistant city editor Carmen Galvan*Copy desk chief Amanda Earp

A&E editor Jessica Acklen*Sports editor Chris Derrett*Photo editor Jed DeanWeb editor Jonathan AngelMultimedia producer Ted Harrison

Copy editor Amy HeardCopy editor Wakeelah CrutisonStaff writer Sara TirritoStaff writer Jade MardirosianStaff writer Ariadne Aberin

Sports writer Matt LarsenSports writer Krista PirtlePhotographer Nick BerrymanPhotographer Makenzie Mason Photographer Matt Hellman

Editorial Cartoonist Esteban DiazAd Salesperson Trent CryerAd Salesperson Victoria CarrolAd Salesperson Keyheira KeysAd Salesperson Simone Mascarenhas

Delivery Sarah KrollDelivery John Estrada

* denotes member of the editorial

board

A recent study of survey responses, transcript in-formation and data from the Collegiate Learning Assessment concluded

that 45 percent of students tested after their second year in college showed no improve-ment in their development of “higher-order cognitive skills.”

This finding is the basis of the soon-to-be-released book, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. The book is a compilation of the findings of researchers who followed 2,300 under-graduates through four years of college at 24 unidentified higher education institutions to measure the progress of the undergradu-ates’ critical thinking and analytic reasoning skills.

Dr. Richard Arum, a professor of sociol-ogy and education at New York University and director of the Education Research Program of the Social Science Research Council, and Dr. Josipa Roksa, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, are both authors of the book set to be published by the University of Chicago Press this month.

A portion of the experts’ book was published on the Chronicle of Higher Education website, in which the two discuss the book, the data and why college students aren’t improving.

The debate on the costs of higher educa-tion and how the system can be improved has been a heated topic for years. From students too focused on their social lives to professors focused on individual research, the authors have found that the very people within the higher education system aren’t focused on a remedy to the problems. Even worse, Arum and Roksa say that some may not even notice the problems, writing that college students “define and understand their college experiences as being focused more on social than on aca-demic development.”

But a developed social aptitude certainly

has its perks and should not be considered the sole reason students are not learning.

Students leave college with strong friendships and lasting memories. They have learned to depend on others, to value friendship and to live independently.

However, when they leave college they don’t entertain the thought that their cogni-

tive skills may have never developed. It is far easier for self-reflective people to

view their social progress. A person’s intel-lectual progress, however, is a much more difficult aspect to examine.

It is ridiculous to say that all students only come to college for the social growth. Perhaps students believe they have intel-lectually grown from college when in fact, because of the ease of college courses, they have not.

The workload of college courses has a dramatic effect on the amount a student improves. The study proves that students whose classes reflect high expectations (more than 40 pages of reading a week and more than 20 pages of writing a semester) developed their cognitive skills more than

other students. Therefore, those teachers who underestimate the work ethic of the current student population may be helping the final grades of their course but they are in no way improving the overall education of students.

It is clear that several factors are con-tributing to the stunted academic growth in higher education. However, it all boils down to the truth that there isn’t enough people who care to work toward a solution.

“Students in general seek to enjoy the benefits of a full collegiate experience that is focused as much on social life as on aca-demic pursuits, while earning high marks in their courses with relatively little invest-ment of effort. Professors are eager to find time to concentrate on their scholarship and professional interests. Administrators have been asked to focus largely on external institutional rankings and the financial bottom line. Government funding agencies are primarily interested in the development of new scientific knowledge. In short, the system works. No actors in the system are primarily interested in undergraduates’ aca-demic growth, although many are interested in student retention and persistence.”

The problem lies here: No one is focus-ing directly on the quality of our education — not students, professors, administra-tors or faculty. How can we, as a nation that once stood as the archetype of higher education success, continue to allow money and politics to steal from future generations’ well being? This research has pinpointed the glaring flaws of higher education and is sure to spark much discussion and hope-fully change. However, many aspects of the current academic realm go untouched in this study, such as the major role digital technology has played on our generation’s development. Despite our simultaneous growth with the digital world, numerous professors refuse to incorporate any form of technology into their courses. It is absurd to think that teaching styles should never change. In fact, the easiest way to attempt to

remedy this problem of “no-growth learn-ing” is to ask those who have committed their lives to educating collegiate scholars to tap into their classes and discover what is and is not working. It seems as if some professors expect all students to conform to their generation’s methods rather than discerning the appropriate way to teach for the new generations.

As we become more dependent on technology, courses should not continue to refuse the integration of technology. How-ever, simply accommodating for technology will not solve our problems either. If digital textbooks are supposed to be offset the cost of high education, then will an increased reading load truly benefit? Therefore, col-leges should focus on the ability to fully teach a course rather than the ability to offer the course at a lower cost. Until the realm of higher education has decided to embrace technology, this balancing of pros and cons will drone on.

The collegiate balance is severely off-kilter. There are so many problems to fix and several theoretical remedies. What’s missing is action. What was once a highly efficient system that churned out bright young minds and innovative ideas is now nearing mass chaos. However, as Arum and Raksa say in their book, we can’t classify this problem as a “crisis” because no one seems to be treating it as such. That is, many people are sitting idle. Administrators are still bringing in money, students are enjoy-ing their college years and professors are still focusing on personal research. Until the higher education constituency bans togeth-er and resolves to fix our broken system, we may be headed downhill to a fate that is, at best, mediocre and, at worst, a failure. It shouldn’t take failure to get us motivated.

It should take the fact that some students are leaving institutions that proclaim a mission of education without showing any improvement. That is failure. And it should be unacceptable. We need passion. We need drive. We need a new mindset.

Higher costs, less learning and increased

apathy — those are the afflictions of higher education. Scholars have begun to delve into these problems and the findings are astounding. Yet still, the people within academia aren’t reacting because money is still flowing in and college is still enjoyable. We have to alter the system and we should start now.

>> Students who study by themselves for more hours each week gain more knowledge — while those who spend more time studying in peer groups see diminishing gains.

>> Students whose classes reflect high expectations (more than 40 pages of reading a week and more than 20 pages of writing a semester) gained more than other students.

Source: Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.

of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” during the first two years of college.

Opinion2 | TUESDAY| FEBRUARY 22, 2011the Baylor Lariat www.baylorlariat.com

Opinion








Copy editor Amy HeardCopy editor Wakeelah CrutisonStaff writer Sara TirritoStaff writer Jade MardirosianSports writer Matt Larsen

Sports writer Krista PirtlePhotographer Nick BerrymanPhotographer Makenzie Mason Photographer Matt HellmanEditorial Cartoonist Esteban Diaz

Ad Salesperson Trent CryerAd Salesperson Victoria CarrolAd Salesperson Keyheira KeysAd Salesperson Simone Mascarenhas

Delivery Sarah Kroll

Delivery John Estrada


board

House Bill 750, a piece of state legislation that would require public universities to allow

license holders to bring concealed handguns on campus, now has 81 of the 150 House representatives listed as co-authors. The senatorial equivalent has 14 of the 31 senators on board.

The bills include a clause that allows private universities — after consulting students, faculty and staff — to “adopt rules, regulations, or other provi-sions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on premises that are owned or operated by the institu-tion and located on the campus of the institution.”

Simply because Baylor would be allowed to opt out of the bill, however, doesn’t necessarily mean it should. Though President Ken Starr— along with several officials in the government relations office — have made public their disdain for the on-campus carry-ing of concealed weapons, there is still an opportunity for the members of this university to come to a decision after civil, legitimate and copious discussion.

There are certainly two sides to this debate. Those in favor argue that any student that goes through the process to obtain a concealed handgun license (CHL) should rightfully be allowed to carry on campus.

Many campus carry supporters also concede that the exception clause for private universities is necessary.

On the other hand, others say al-lowing on campus carry would greatly compromise security and create an unsafe environment. From haphazard shootings to the idea of college life be-ing mixed with guns, concealed carry opponents simply think the whole is safer without gun carriers.

Guns are symbols that hold one of the most volatile stigmas in American society and, because of that, we see misnomers and ill-informed arguments convoluting the already hazy conversa-tions.

For instance, many against campus carry think the class that is required

to get a CHL is simply about shoot-ing. According to the Texas Concealed Handgun Association, the class is 10 to 15 hours and includes a written exami-nation and a shooting practice.

The association’s website states “the written exam covers law, nonviolent conflict resolution, and handgun use and storage” and a passing grade is 70 percent or higher.

But it isn’t just about a written test and a shooting range practice. For CHL approval in the State of Texas, one must also:

• Be 21 years old• Have a clean criminal history,

including military service and recent juvenile records

• Not be under a protective order • Not be chemically dependent• Not be of unsound mind• Not be delinquent in paying fines,

fees, child support, etc. • Be eligible to purchase a handgun

by completing the National Instant Criminal Background Check

With that, we wonder what could be in support of not allowing those that satisfy all of the aforementioned requirements to carry on campus?

What seems to be the most preva-lent point from the opposite side is that allowing college students to carry guns on campus and into classrooms has inherent risks.

Many opposing campus carry argue that the college experience is not the proper place for CHL holders. They as-sociate college with environments that consistently include substances that impair your judgment.

As a case study, Baylor is an outlier — a Christian, private school with only 15,000 undergraduates. The aver-age age of the undergraduates is 20.5 years of age and with all other schools (seminary, law, etc.) the average age increases to 21.9.

The average junior is 21.0 years of age and the average senior is 22.3. The longstanding CHL age requirement rules out the average lowerclassman from considering a CHL. Of the up-perclassmen that could get a CHL, it is

practically unpredictable to gauge just how many would actually go through the CHL process.

Texas saw 123, 325 applications for CHLs from September 2009 to August

2010. Twenty-one-year-old applicants made up 1.61 percent of the applica-tions, or a mere 1,990, and 22-year-olds accounted for 1.36 percent, or 1,672, of the applications.

That means that of all the 21-year-olds in the entire state, only 1,990 of them applied for CHLs. Initially, Baylor would not see a large number of CHL holding students.

The unknown, however, is whether the proposed legislation would significantly increase the number of CHL holding college enrollees. That is, perhaps the small number of 21-and 22- year-olds is caused by the anti-gun policies at state universities. It’s a rather uncertain correlation.

Either way, those in favor of on- campus carry feel their rights are being suppressed.

The Young Conservatives of Texas and the Texas College Republicans have jointly announced that the

organizations both consider campus carry the top priority of the 2011 Texas Legislature.

As previously stated, the dangerous connotation that comes along with the word gun pushes many to a quick judgment.

The facts, though, point to the idea that this topic is one that needs to be carefully considered. In fact, if HB 750 does pass, private universities would be required to consult with stu-dents, faculty and staff before deciding on weapons policies.

It is a clause that Baylor should take seriously. We are grateful that the proposed legislation would give our administrators the authority to choose, and the best way to come to a decision that best suits Baylor is to get our fam-ily talking.

Each distinct population within Baylor — from faculty to students — will be affected differently by the administration’s choice. This is an issue that should not be decided until op-posing sides of the issue are brought to the attention of Baylor officials.

We hope the decision isn’t already made by the ad-ministration (though it seems that way).

We want members of the Baylor commu-nity to use the opportunity to lobby for their side construc-tively.

This is such a hot-button issue that civil engage-ment of both sides may clear the air, bust the rumors and actually produce progress. If we are never given the opportunity speak, then we’ll sit idle and learn nothing.

Civil discourse is a rarity in our society, but embedded in this contro-versial issue is a chance for Baylor to promote it.

-

A2

The ability to go to a museum and enjoy the exhibits, being able to walk into an emergency room and

explain an illness or injury, going to a movie for pleasure, the safety net of an emergency phone in an elevator — these are all things most people are able to do with ease, and often take for granted.

But for members of the deaf community, these activities represent obstacles that can be difficult to over-come, especially when the community lacks the resources to compensate.

The lack of equal opportunities for deaf people in Waco was first brought to the Lariat’s attention in January when we learned the Mayborn Museum Complex did not offer ac-commodations for deaf visitors. When visiting the museum, the deaf cannot fully appreciate the exhibits because much of the information is in the ac-companying audio.

After researching, the Lariat stumbled across many other ways the deaf community is lacking equality at Baylor and in Waco — excluding them from daily pleasures and forcing them to face hardships.

The stress of having to take a trip to the emergency room, which is great in and of itself, is only amplified when it is difficult to communicate. The inability to describe symptoms or ask questions increases the likelihood for miscommunication.

The Waco movie theaters don’t of-fer show times with closed captioning, making it impossible for a deaf person to go to a movie with family or friends and understand it. The concern that an elevator could break down becomes a real issue for a deaf person who can-not communicate there is a problem without the proper technology.

Even more than being left out of the community — or perhaps because of it — the deaf are misunderstood and the culture is underappreciated. The fact that American Sign Lan-guage (ASL) cannot count toward the language credit at Baylor is a prime example.

Even though ASL is a language dis-tinct from English, the College of Arts and Sciences does not allow ASL to count for the foreign language credit because, according to associate dean of humanities and professor of Spanish Dr. Frieda Blackwell, Baylor expects students to be able to participate glob-ally and wants students to learn about another culture.

This reasoning is seriously flawed. First, ASL is a foreign language,

and is even recognized as such by universities around the country.

Even though there has not been a truly reliable survey done on the number of people in the United States who speak ASL as their first language (another testament to how this culture is not represented), estimates are at about 2 million people, according to B. Scheck, the author of the “Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education.”

ASL should not be disqualified as a foreign language simply because it was developed in the United States and Canada for many reasons. Other languages that originated in America, such as the Native American lan-guages, are still considered foreign. ASL has its own grammatical system, a writing system and has its roots in French Sign Language. ASL is not a simplified version of English, but an independent, complex language.

ASL is also used in the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso,

Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Chad, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Kenya, Madagascar and Zimbabwe.

Deaf culture is also distinct from any other culture.

Deaf people have an identity sepa-rate from mainstream American cul-ture and often identify with being deaf over being an American. They have their own literature, their own tradi-tions. They have a different perspec-tive on activities and life, especially because their world is so visual. Deaf culture has its own distinctive history and deaf arts.

As for wanting to students to be able communicate globally, valuing the ability to communicate with for-eigners over an ability to communicate with other Americans is a tragic mis-placement of what is important. This policy sends the message to the deaf community that Baylor, and many other colleges and schools, believes it is more important to communicate with foreigners than fellow Ameri-cans. It sends the message to students that ASL is not an important language, that it is not worth learning, and that the deaf community is not worthy of trying to understand.

In addition, the majority of students who simply complete their requisite four semesters of a foreign language are only learning enough to stumble through a very basic conversation. And, unless they took Spanish, they won’t be exposed to this language on a regular basis. Most of students will lose even their elemental knowledge in a matter of a year or two, and will probably never use it again in their life.

However, if students were to complete four semesters of ASL as a foreign language credit, they could

easily make use of their capabilities and in every area of the United States. Even the elemental understanding of ASL students would receive in four semesters of classes would be enough to communicate with an entire group of our society that is greatly left out of daily communication.

That is not to say that progress is not in the making. Since the Lariat’s investigation began, Dr. Ellie Caston, director of the Mayborn Museum, has been in contact with Dr. Lewis Lummer, lecturer of communication sciences and disorders at Baylor, to find resources for the deaf and make the Mayborn more accessible.

The Starplex Galaxy 16 movie theater in Waco told the Lariat it is looking into opportunities to make the theater more open to the deaf com-munity.

Providence Hospital in Waco has taken steps to communicate with deaf members of the community by hiring an independent certified language interpreting service to assist when needed. However, in emergency situations the hospital staff falls back to communicating with basic hand motions, as it does not have a certified translator on staff.

It is clear that there is not enough available in Waco for the deaf commu-nity, either on or off Baylor’s campus. The lack of understanding of deaf culture, the lack of a desire to ensure deaf people are included in society and the inadequate resources available are all shocking problems that need to be addressed. Leaders in the Waco community need to make an active effort to incorporate the deaf commu-nity. Baylor needs to take a stand on the importance of ASL. And individ-ual members of society need make an effort to understand and interact with deaf culture.

Opinion| FRIDAY| FEBRUARY 18, 2011the Baylor Lariat www.baylorlariat.com

Opinion








Copy editor Amy HeardCopy editor Wakeelah CrutisonStaff writer Sara TirritoStaff writer Jade MardirosianStaff writer Ariadne Aberin

Sports writer Matt LarsenSports writer Krista PirtlePhotographer Nick BerrymanPhotographer Makenzie Mason Photographer Matt Hellman

Editorial Cartoonist Esteban DiazAd Salesperson Trent CryerAd Salesperson Victoria CarrolAd Salesperson Keyheira KeysAd Salesperson Simone Mascarenhas

Delivery Sarah KrollDelivery John Estrada


board

It’s time for a

Opinion2| FRIDAY | SEPTEMBER 3, 2010the Baylor Lariat www.baylorlariat.com

Opinion






Editor in chief Nick Dean City editor Caty Hirst News editor James ByersAssistant city editor Olga BallCopy desk chief Amanda Earp

A&E editor Jenna DeWittSports editor Chris DerrettPhoto editor Daniel CerneroWeb editor Jonathan AngelMultimedia producer Kavitha Muthukrishnan

Copy editor Amy HeardCopy editor Wakeelah CrutisonStaff writer Sara TirritoStaff writer Jade MardirosianStaff writer Carmen Galvan

Staff writer Meghan HendricksonSports writer Matt LarsenSports writer Rachel RoachPhotographer Nick BerrymanPhotographer Makenzie Mason

Photographer Matt HellmanEditorial Cartoonist Esteban DiazAd Salesperson Trent CryerAd Salesperson Courtney WhiteheadAd Salesperson Victoria Carroll

Ad Salesperson Tyler McManusDelivery John Harvey


It seems like Rick Perry doesn’t take the public part of his job as governor very seriously. Despite a contender fighting tooth and nail to take his job, Perry is refusing to attend a gubernatorial debate

planned by five major newspapers in Texas. Perry and his Democratic opponent Bill White, have been invited to a public debate set for 7 p.m. on Oct. 19. On Aug. 27 White said he would attend.

Perry told Texas papers he refuses to attend the debate until White releases his tax returns for the years he served as assistant secretary of energy in the ‘90s.

Perry currently leads White in the polls. Many specu-late Perry only has something to lose by debating. We think the only people who lose from not having a debate are the people charged with electing the Texas governor — Texans.

Perry’s refusal is not only distasteful and tactless — it is also depriving voters of the ability to make a well-informed and intentional vote in November.

Politics may be a game of looking good in the public eye, but surely Perry doesn’t think Texans take his well-produced advertisements and 30-second sound bites at face value. Texans are looking for real answers and for a governor that can stand his ground when discussing the issues facing the Lone Star State.

Perry wants White’s tax returns. So do we. But we don’t want to lose an opportunity to hear the two gubernatorial candidates speak because we aren’t sure how much one of them made a decade ago. The fact that White still refuses to release those tax returns is a valid point for Perry to bring up in a public forum — like a debate.

Perry has no right to commandeer the debate as a part of his political campaign, which is exactly what he is do-ing by providing an ultimatum.

In fact, Perry’s seemingly altruistic claim for more information about White works as an antithesis to his current campaign strategy — refusing to talk to any state newspaper’s editorial board.

Newspapers are charged with the responsibility to inform the public. The candidates are not obligated to talk to editorial boards. However, the two are answerable to all Texans and a public debate provides an informative, clear and healthy atmosphere for communication between the people of Texas and the candidates.

Perry has yet to show any form of transparency in his campaign though he is asking for it from White. We are asking for transparency from both. The candidates should recognize the importance of this debate and the signifi-cance debates have in the eyes of the public.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, the last time there was not a Texas gubernatorial debate during an election year was two decades ago when Democrat Ann Richards beat Republican Clayton Williams.

A debate is meant to inform the people Perry works for and those for which White wants to work.

The five newspapers have downplayed the effect Perry’s absence will have on the debate. The conclusion of the invitation to the two candidates read: The event is not contingent on both candidates’ participation, however. If only one candidate shows up for the debate, we will discuss issues with him alone for the entire hour.

Whether Perry shows up is still unknown. But one thing is for sure — the public will be there.

Will he show?White is going. Perry says he isn’t.

We say he owes the public this debate.

Today, The Lariat joins nine other Texas universities in calling on Gov. Rick Perry to attend the Oct. 19 gubernatorial debate in Austin. The student bodies of the institutions total 250,000 students. The following collegiate papers participated:

The Daily Texan (UT-Austin); Daily Campus (Southern Methodist University); The Pan American (UT-Pan American); The University Star (Texas State); Daily Skiff (Texas Christian University); The Collegian (UT- Brownsville); Accent (Austin Community College); Daily Toreador (Texas Tech); The Shorthorn (UT-Arlington)

Links to all the editorials can be found on The Lariat’s website: www.baylorlariat.com

Photo Illustration | By Daniel Cernero & Nick Dean

Opinion2| WEDNESDAY| FEBRUARY 9, 2011the Baylor Lariat www.baylorlariat.com

The global media has turned all eyes upon the upheaval of Egypt’s govern-ment in recent weeks. The protesters

that brought the country to its knees are pleading for the removal of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president for the past 30 years.

Playing an integral role in the dev-lopment of what can rightly be catego-rized as a revolution for democracy, the media has been captivating and garner-ing interest from a global audience with its informative, accurate coverage of the events as they unfold.

After the articles were filed and the facts were out, the editorial pages of news outlets around the world took up the protesters’ fight — arguing that such a widespread, intense fervor for democ-racy warrants much change.

But these epic protests did not always garner so much support in the political realm. In fact, President Barack Obama initially shared a similar reac-tion to the Egyptian revolts as some Arab leaders — silence.

The Obama administration’s silence can be easily construed as a move to back Israel’s interests and maintain an American ally in the Middle East. It was a choice that allowed political interest to trump democracy.

In fact, the administration released quiet support of the Mubarak regime when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to say: “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.”

With the entire world watching, the United States chose to remain silent about a corrupt, oppressive regime over supporting a people’s cries for democ-racy.

However, the political rhetoric changed dramatically when the world’s media began to highlight our leaders’ hypocrisies for the entire world to see.

A Jan. 28 editorial by the New York Times clearly outlined the internal struggle the United States government was having with the Egypt situation.

“Egypt, with Mr. Mubarak in charge, is an American ally and a recipient of nearly $1.5 billion in aid annually. It is the biggest country in the Arab world and was the first to make peace with Israel. … All of which leaves Washing-ton in a quandary, trying to balance national security concerns and its moral responsibility to stand with those who have the courage to oppose authoritar-ian rulers.”

The editorial ended with an exhorta-tion for Obama to cut the federal aid money for Egypt if Mubarak continues to escalate the fight against the protest-ers.

Al Jazeera-English echoed the same sentiments even more vehemently in its opinion section. Its Feb. 1 editorial compared the U.S. support of the 2009 Iranian protests to the U.S. support for the Egypt uprisings, and found disturb-ing disparities in the stories.

The American government was much more willing to express support for Iranian protesters fighting for the same causes we have now seen Egyp-tians rally for — liberty and democracy.

During the Iranian uprisings protest-ers were fighting an oppressive regime with a corrupt voting system. Innocent people were arrested, beaten, intimi-dated and killed.

Journalists were arrested and beaten and communications were hampered when President Mahmoud Ahmadine-jad tried to have major social networks shutdown.

Obama immediately came out and openly condemned Ahmadinejad of Iran and fought to keep Twitter and Facebook open for Iranians. He went so far as to apply pressure to Twitter and Facebook to avoid a scheduled mainte-nance shutdown to aid the protesters.

Fast-forward two years. Egyptian protesters fighting an oppressive regime with a corrupt voting system are ar-rested, beaten, killed.

Journalists are arrested and beaten and communications are hampered — as Mubarak not only shuts down Face-book and Twitter, but nearly the entire Internet structure of Egypt.

This time, Obama hesitated.In these remarkably similar situa-

tions, the Obama administration’s reac-tions were remarkably dissimilar. What other correlation can be made than that the administration has some hesitation in angering current allies? If we are a country that has backed other revolu-tions fighting for democracy, then we must stay true to that resolve or else we

mar our reputation and engage in severe hypocrisy.

In another editorial, The New York Times shed light on the Egyptian pro-testers, giving voice to the concerns that Obama was acting too slowly in cutting his ties with Mubarak. The Times argued that while a cautious attitude is commendable, this was the time for America to stand strong for democracy.

Across a broad spectrum of outlets, from Twitter to blogs, people assailed America as a hypocrite — talking the talk of democracy but not walking the walk.

After days of assault from the world media, professional news outlets and blogs alike, the Obama administration finally decided to take a stand.

On Feb. 1 Obama asked Mubarak not to run for reelection. Mubarak decided not to seek re-election, but protesters still weren’t happy. Editorials after Obama’s initial request to Mubarak demanded a stronger response from the country’s figurehead.

On Feb. 3, Obama answered with a more forceful request: Step back, Mubarak, and allow Vice President Omar Suleiman to lead the government reform in Egypt.

And most recently, when Sulei-man expressed that Egypt wasn’t ready for a democracy, the White House announced that Suleiman’s views were “unacceptable.”

The administration has pushed for amendments to the Egyptian Constitu-tion, legalization of political parties and more free government opponents and members of the media from prisons.

The determined Egyptian protesters should be admired for their courage in the face of arrests, physical abuse and even death. They should be admired for starting the protests and continuing to see them through.

But the world’s media, in publishing news articles and editorials about the event, should also be lauded. This will stand as a testament to the power of the editorial page, a time when the national consensus was forcefully presented to America’s president.

A time when newspaper editorial boards refused to allow what America stands for to be ignored.

The leaders of modern journalism — a craft famously quoted as mightier than the sword — helped the people of Egypt and they saved face for America.

Members of the media have been victims of intimidation and physical abuse, ranging from beatings to destruc-tion and theft of equipment. Reporters from the United Kingdom’s Guardian to Qatar’s Al Jazeera have been arrested and physically attacked by Mubarak’s police. Yet they still keep writing and photographing.

By providing accurate coverage of the protests, arrests and violence, journalists have allowed the masses to understand what is going on in the larg-est Middle Eastern country.

The media chose to continue follow-ing the story in the face of grave danger, and in doing so ensured that Egypt would gain interest in their cause and possible support from the citizens of the world and, eventually, the United States.

Opinion








Copy editor Amy HeardCopy editor Wakeelah CrutisonStaff writer Sara TirritoStaff writer Jade MardirosianSports writer Matt Larsen






board

The power of this page

How the newspeople of our time went to Egypt, researched the situation, informed the world and then fought for democracy

The leaders of modern journalism — a craft famously quoted as mightier than the sword — helped the people of Egypt and they saved face for America.

>> Bloggers and lawyers told CPJ that authorities detained Abdel Karim Sulei-man—known online as Karim Amer — at some point in the early morning hours in Cairo Monday. Amer completed a four-year prison sentence on charges of insulting Islam and President Hosni Mubarak in late 2010.

>> Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporters Robert Tait and Abdelilah Nuaimi, both British citizens, were released on Sun-day and left Egypt, according to a statement released by the U.S. government-funded radio station. The journalists were detained on February 4. Tait was reported as saying that “whatever official statements you might hear about the situation of detained journal-ists, we were not treated well.”

>> Liam Stack, who has been stringing for the New York Times, was also briefly detained on Sunday and tweet-ed that authorities confiscated his camera.

>> On Friday, Amira Ahmed, business editor at The Daily News Egypt, was at-tacked by a pro-Mubarak mob, according to news reports. “It was terrifying,” Ahmed told the Guardian. “They were chanting: ‘We’ve found the foreigners, don’t let them go,’ and calling us traitors and spies. When I pointed out to them that I was Egyptian, they responded: ‘Your Egypt isn’t the same as ours.’

>> Journalists Souad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish, who were detained on Thursday and released 24 hours later, wrote in the New York Times about intimidation and mistreatment by the plain-clothes officers who held them. “We felt powerless — uncertain about where and how long we would be held. But the worst part had nothing to do with our treatment. It was seeing — and in particular hearing through the walls of this dreadful facility — the abuse of Egyptians at the hands of their own govern-ment.

Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

Journalists and Egyptian government clashes

Opinion2| WEDNESDAY| APRIL 20, 2011the Baylor Lariat www.baylorlariat.com

Opinion

The Baylor Lariat welcomes reader view-points through letters to the editor and guest

columns. Opinions expressed in the Lariat

are not necessarily those of the Baylor admin-istration, the Baylor Board of Regents or





Copy editor Amy HeardCopy editor Wakeelah CrutisonStaff writer Sara TirritoStaff writer Jade Mardirosian Sports writer Matt Larsen






board

Time and time again editorial pages, news stories and press con-ferences have started out with some mention of the state’s lack-luster fi-nancial situation and the inevitabil-ity of reining in spending.

State legislators are taking blind hacks at small programs — and in their path is the Texas Equalization Grant, an initiative that provides funds to first-generation and minor-ity students for their college tuition.

The proposal cuts the total allot-ment of TEG funds by 41.5 percent.

For Fiscal Year 2011, the state spent $102 million on the TEG. Of that, Baylor was awarded $12.3 mil-lion. The cut would eliminate more than $42 million from that budget, a slash that would affect 3,200 cur-rent Baylor students and, eventually, private higher education across the state.

Fifty-two percent of Baylor stu-dents awarded the TEG identify themselves as minorities. If funds

are cut, private schools will see a decrease in the number of students financially able to attend — despite their academic capabilities.

Nearly 700 of the 3,200 Baylor students that have capitalized on the TEG have no way of paying for col-lege aside from financial aid. In fact, it can be assumed that with the TEG cut almost in half, some students will no longer be able to attend Baylor.

More than 38 percent of all TEG recipients have no capacity to pay a portion of their college costs — meaning those individuals have an estimated family contribution below $1,000.

It is not logical to cut the TEG, a program that actually saves the state money. It costs the state $4,175 more for a public university student than for a private university student.

Taxpayers would have paid more than $232 million in fiscal year 2009 had TEG recipients enrolled in pub-lic universities.

Therefore, if the state were to cut the TEG, more students would not have the option of attending a pri-

vate university and would instead rely more heavily on the state for public education support.

Private universities like Baylor look to extend scholarships to each of its attendees.

According to the Indepen-dent Colleges and Universities of Texas Inc., its member institutions provided more than $506 million in non-governmental financial assis-tance to students. That’s nearly five times the amount awarded by the TEG.

At Baylor specifically, students that are accepted are awarded a scholarship based on their rank-ing and test scores. There are also numerous other scholarship opportunities afforded to Baylor stu-dents.

Baylor has increased its scholar-ship endeavors, most recently with the President’s Scholarship Initiative set to raise $100 million for students.

If the TEG is cut, however, pri-vate universities and the state suffer a major setback.

The funds raised by the schools

for scholarships have to cover more of the students’ costs in order to re-tain the students and the state has to dish out more money for each stu-dent that won’t be able to afford a private school without the TEG.

The proposed cut is to a program whose budget accounts for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire state budget. That amounts to less than 1 percent of the total higher education budget in Texas.

Students are given the chance to earn a degree from a private institu-tion. Private universities are able to give more scholarship money to stu-dents.

Texas taxpayers are able to pay less for a student to earn a degree — a degree that prepares them for the workforce and, in turn, benefits the Texas economy.

In these dire times, the state Leg-islature is hunting for cuts. The TEG has fallen prey to off-the-mark scal-pels and we, as a Baylor family, have to step up and fight for this program.

President Ken Starr has launched a website — Baylor.edu/saveteg

— dedicated to informing people of the value of the TEG. Much of the information provided here is found at that site.

He has asked for Baylor fac-ulty, staff, students and alumni to contact their state representatives and tell them what the TEG has done for Baylor, Texas and themselves. We advise readers to do the same.

For almost 40 years, Texas Equalization Grants have helped Texans across the state break free from the financial burdens of attend-ing private universities like Baylor.

At the suggestion of Starr, for the concern of fellow students and for the protection of Baylor, Texans should use their right as a represented body to make their voices heard. Only through vocalizing the importance of this is-sue can the outcome be changed.

As students, who are most af-fected, we have a responsibility to protect institutions like Baylor that have helped us so much. Stand up for the TEG, students; future students like us depend on us to.

Editorial

TEG

Prot

ect t

he

Why it matters so muchand fighting for it costs us so little

Backed with facts

86% of TEG students are undergraduates

$232 million what taxpayers would have paid in FY2009 if TEG recipients enrolled in public universities instead

$102 million the total budget for the TEG in FY2011, just one-tenth of 1 percent of the state’s entire budget

Taxpayers pay

55 percent less per student enrolled in a private institution

Baylor has

THE MOSTTEG recepients out of all private institutions in TexasSource: Independent Colleges and Universities of Texas Inc.

nick dean — opinion page designs

Documents

college students arent

years of college

college campuses

college experiences

city editor caty hirst

higher education system

development of higher

percent of students