Letters to the Editor
April 3rd, 2005
UAC did not encroach on E3W’s editorial freedom
To the Daily:
In last Thursday’s article (E3W Content Criticized, 03/31/2005), the Daily asserted that First Amendment issues were raised because of the interaction between the University Activities Center and the Every Three Weekly. This assertion stems from the Daily’s lack of understanding of UAC’s structure. UAC was chartered by the University Board of Regents in 1965 to provide the campus with student-led and produced programming. We currently fulfill this mission through 15 committees. Each committee is given virtual autonomy in its undertakings. All committees are in equal standing within UAC and together they make up UAC. The executive board is an extension of all of the committees and serves to organize and support the committees, as well as coordinate UAC’s finances. UAC and the E3W are one and the same. Any censorship undertaken by UAC (There has been none, and there are no plans for any in the future.) would be an act of self-censorship.
Despite my explaining this structure to the Daily and it being laid out in UAC’s constitution, the Daily chose to publish its article that makes contrary assumptions. To provide an accurate picture of the events in question, I offer a summary of what occurred.
As president of UAC, I stand behind all of our committees and serve as both spokesman for all of UAC and, when need be, defender of its products and productions. In this capacity, I met with the Athletic Department. It had voiced a concern about the E3W’s depiction of student athletes and their actions, and I felt meeting with them was the action of a responsible student organization that was proud of its product, while sensitive to the concerns of the campus community. I asked the E3W’s editor in chief to join me in the meeting to shed light on editorial processes with which I was not familiar. The Athletic Department voiced its perception of callousness on the E3W’s behalf when referring to student athletes and asked that the editors take these athletes’ viewpoints into account when making editorial decisions. There were no demands made of the E3W, nor any changes made in the editorial process as a result of this meeting. The E3W produces a satirical newspaper, which it edits, publishes and distributes just as it has for years before this meeting and did with the issue in question. The articles were available to the campus community through the print media, but, out of deference to the athletes, were not made available on the Internet.
UAC is proud of the E3W and is happy to provide the campus with the smiles and laughter that accompany it. UAC shares the Daily’s concern about the First Amendment, because we do not want to lose the protection it provides. For more information about UAC and all of its committees please visit www.umich.edu/~uac.
Mark Hindelang
The letter writer is the president of UAC.
E3W’s content is not ‘unbecoming’ to the community
To the Daily:
Without getting into the foreboding implications of an official University committee meeting to “discuss” student newspaper content, I’d just like to disagree with Michael Stevenson’s charge that the Every Three Weekly’s content is “unbecoming” to our community.
While skewering student Michael Phelps’s alleged zeal for his female classmates may not exactly match the satirical caliber of Chaucer or Swift, the E3W’s got a likable bawdy insolence that enlivens this campus. We live in an era of increasing anxiety and elastic civil rights, and so thank goodness the E3W is around to stir (and crack) us up. Long may it misbehave.
Nicholas Allen Harp
English lecturer
Daily is misinformed about school reform
To the Daily:
Your interest in school reform in Michigan is commendable (Saving schools, 04/01/2005). Your command of the facts is lamentable. First of all, Carmen Park Elementary School is not in the city of Flint. It is in the Carmen-Ainsworth District, which is not without troubles of its own, but nevertheless is a preferred destination for some families fleeing Flint that cannot afford pricier little towns like Goodrich or Grand Blanc. Dan Behm is not the “Flint Public School Superintendent” either. The superintendent of the Flint Community Schools left after three turbulent years, as did his predecessor. The current interim superintendent is Ira Rutherford.
Second, abolishing grade levels and grouping students by ability is not radical reform, it is an old idea — as are most ideas in education. In some contexts it works, in others it doesn’t. The teachers of Flint — the real Flint, not Carmen-Ainsworth — have done it previously under the rubric of “learning communities.”
Third, you commit the logical fallacy of the “strawperson argument” — the invocation of the archetypal teacher who has been doing the same thing the same way for 20 years, who belongs to a union resistant to change. The teachers of Flint — the real Flint — have incorporated many good ideas and many fads into practice over the years and have been advised by researchers from well-known universities, in and out of state. Most recently, we have been mentored by Harlem educators who founded their own academies outside of the New York public schools to accomplish their goals but expect us to move mountains within our given system. Moreover, our union is rather weak in enforcing quality of worklife issues and rules. I personally had far better working conditions when I was a nonunion teacher in another state.
So, take your interest in school reform out of well-meaning, misinformed editorials and bring it to urban areas like Flint or Detroit. By all means, do not go to the School of Education. Join Teach for America, pay your dues in the trenches, come back ready for another career and then we’ll talk.
Catherine Meza
The letter writer is an instructor for Flint Community Schools
Printed from www.michigandaily.com on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:00:35 -0400