next »

[Why?]

Again, in theory the proposal sounds fine, but in actuality it simply will never work.



Again, most faculty, administrators, and staff cannot exercise sufficient (read: minimal) self-control to effect the theory and not instantaneously transform it into yet another chance for politically frustrated and impotent faculty to browbeat defenseless students.

[Michael]

"again, I ask what is wrong with suggesting it is important to vote in an informed manner? Answer that question!"


Your diction and syntax are atrocious.  How can a "manner" be "informed?"

You're another undergrad kid hijacking forums.

On the off chance that you're serious, the problem is that the Academy is not to be turned into a political re-education camp, a la 1984.  Those in charge NEVER say "we don't care who you vote for, just vote."  It's always "Vote Democrat or else you're a Nazi."

As another poster has suggested, it is a veiled attempt to garner support for left-wing political causes that do not have popular, democratic support.

[John]

Wonder no more.  

Although one could reasonably take issue with your original post--that everyone should vote--I don't think anyone could reasonably take issue with the idea that, in a democracy, everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to vote.

Whether or not school administrators should take some kind of proactive role in educating/registering students is an entirely different issue.  I think that they probably should not because administrators, being what they are, are probably going to put as much, or more, effort into educating students about how to vote than how to register to vote.

The school might want to put voter registration forms in the student union, but anything more than that I would not be comfortable with.

[%sig%]

[billy bob]

In a democracy is it wrong for an interest group to seek political support?

Here is an interesting news article from http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2002/07032002.shtml :

“AUSTIN – Secretary of State Gwyn Shea today notified local election officials that a new law signed by President Bush rescinds a Clinton Administration directive and once again allows military bases to be designated as polling places. "We must make every effort to ensure that the men and women who safeguard our democracy have full access to our most basic right – the right to vote," Shea said. "I’m notifying base commanders, county judges and local election officials of this new law, and I encourage them to designate military bases as polling locations to make it easier for service personnel to have their voices heard on Election Day." The new law allows military bases that had been designated as polling places before the Clinton Administration directive to once again be used for that purpose. The new law was included in the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002," which was signed by Bush on Dec. 28, 2001.”

The Republican Party has no problem allowing military bases to be used as voting stations, presumably, because the military is a good source of Republican votes. The military is no-doubt supportive of this measure, because the Republican Party is very kind to them. What is wrong with Higher Education defending itself by making it easy for voters who will be kind to them to vote? Why is encouraging students to vote and making it easier for them to vote a bad idea? Are students any more susceptible to indoctrination than military personnel? Please… objections to making it easy for students to vote are ridiculous. It is in the interest of Higher Education for students to vote, largely because they will (presumably) vote pro-Higher Education.

[rvcc]

Mr. Bush's latest speech on the Iraq War causes one to wonder if what he tried to do was explain or excuse. Each of his Iraq War speeches strikes one as another attempt at damage control without specifying useful information about what to expect. There never is any sum-up that enables one to understand where we've been and plans telling us now where we're going. It's all: everything is fine, now we're alright [???], right on course...what course?

More confusing, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney seem to be pulling in opposite directions. Mr. Bush admits that terrible errors were made, but they are not his, he insists, they were made by the CIA. Meanwhile, Mr. Cheney, either insists, "I never said that," or repeats the same line that Bush had attributed to bad intelligence. Mr. Cheney's tone intimates that Mr. Bush doesn't know what he's talking about, everything was true then and is true now, as true now as "...in the beginning"!

While Mr. Bush creates all sorts of new intelligence bureaucracies and security bureaucracies, insisting that everything that went wrong was due to bureaucratic leftovers from Mr. Clinton, Mr. Cheney insists that there was no failure of intelligence, it was really a matter of failure of will to do anything in the previous administration.

Meanwhile, critics are silently slandered in whisper campaigns from the offices of Rove and Cheney, unbeknown to the targets, undermining them as a house in undermined by termites.

Through all this seeming confusion and nothing but bad news from the world's strongest army's high-tech struggle against "terrorists" with only hand guns and bombs, Mr. Bush is calling on us all to be responsible in our debate so as not to send the troops "mixed signals." Indeed, here Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney agree: all the critics are twisting history for purely opportunistic political reasons.

Since the 2004 Republican Convention there has been a frightening Gobbles-streak to the combined spin-propaganda- slander campaigns emanating from the White House, so that our only sources of real information are middle level security bureaucrats and military risking their careers on the belief that the public "has gotta know." Indeed, I would argue that so exquisite has been press and political opposition exposure of "classified" information that only those who do not want to know don't know what is really going on.

Yet, through all this ACADEMIA exhibits an eerie silence-- a silence in reaching out to the public with its analytic and explicative skills from campus that are penetrating, enlightening and predictive. It seems that by cutting back the funding to academia and to student tuition assistance through Republican control of Congress, the Bush Administration has sent a message to academia: don't get involved or more cuts are on the way. It worked, for their scholarly analysis one has to go deep into the bowels of obscure jargonistic journals. Far greater is the explicative sell to the public of genetics and environmental dangers by hard science guys than any analysis by social science academics.

What happened to the teach-ins of the 60s? Where is that vociferous demand for "meaningful dialogue" and debate? Where has evaporated that academic skepticism towards the, "I'm alright and you're alright" claim of the Bush Administration?

Some historians studying the 60s claim that at that time academia was not driven into outspoken off-campus discourse by moral outrage, but by fear from the threat of New Left activists disrupting their classes and "the normal functioning of the university." The Leftists were, n the words of Mario Savio: grind that beastly machine to a halt. Now, with no longer any prospect for a draft of students, one can hardly expect an interruption to the flow of pizza and beer. Hence, with no student ready-audiences, professors cannot be expected to stand at street corners hauling off on the dangers of our Middle East War like self-appointed totting a bible in hand and calling on all to repent. Too bad, because those evangelists, thanks to Mr. Rove, are running the country and the professors are staring into a dark, dark, dark future for themselves.

Daniel E. Teodoru

[wondering]

OK. thanks. I just don't understand this reticence with encouraging people to exercise their rights. After all, that seems to be the reason we went into Iraq and over there we are encouraging everyone to vote. It seems hypocritical to not do the same here.

Or are you afraid that if those who don't vote, now vote, that they will be voting for someone you don't like?

I truly don't understand why you are against encouraging people to vote..to simply vote and exercise their right and responsibilities as a citizen.

Voting in an informed manner might be a difficult phrasing...what I meant was voting with the knowledge of the choices that are before you at the voting booth.

[Anonymous]

The right wing constantly characterizes higher education as a hot bed of radical left wing politics and indoctrination, often citing ludicrous anecdotes and rarely citing any credible data. Nearly every one of these forums is filled with right wing rants about the oppressiveness of left wing academics. Where are all those loony leftists? I guess they are too busy indoctrinating poor defenseless students to have time to post messages here.

Seriously folks, this particular question shouldn't be controversial. Should colleges take simple, inexpensive steps to make it easier for students to vote? Of course they should. I think we live in a democracy. My own beliefs are a mixture of conservative and liberal positions, which happens to be the case for the majority of Americans. This endless polarizing and propaganda serves no purpose except to get Republicans elected.

[%sig%]

[John]

So, we should stop all the "endless polarizing and propaganda"; i.e., debate and discussion, so that no more Republicans will be elected?  Gosh, I wonder if Anonymous just might be one of those looney leftists I've been hearing about.  Could it be??

[B.J.]

People: Job 1 for a college should be ed-ja-ma-ca-tion. Elections, that's for groups like the League of Women Voters (which handles the U.S. presidential debates). If necessary, let the LWV handle any election stuff -- ed-ja-ma-cators should stick to what they are supposed to do -- ed-ja-ma-cate.

[%sig%]

[Anonymous]

Dear John,

I apologize for the apparent lack of clarity in my message. When I said "endless polarizing and propaganda" I meant "endless polarizing and propaganda," not "debate and discussion." Your "id est" is incorrect in this instance, by the way. And when I wrote "My own beliefs are a mixture of conservative and liberal positions," I meant "my own beliefs are a mixture of conservative and liberal positions," not "my beliefs are looney leftist."

On a more relevant note, my own university has had a polling place on campus and has made efforts to encourage students to register to vote for several years now. Students seem to appreciate the efforts, although I couldn't tell you how many students voted due to these efforts who would not have voted otherwise. I have yet to hear any reports of students being subjected to leftist propaganda in connection with these efforts. And even if they were, so what? Students are subjected to propaganda and marketing all the time, just like the rest of us. It is their responsibility to wade through the lies and disinformation thrown at them from all points on the political spectrum, form opinions, and express them by voting. My son attended a service academy, hardly a hotbed of leftist politics, and I hope the Academy made it easy for their students to vote. I have yet to understand how this issue is a left vs. right issue.

And for those of you who keep asserting that the only legitimate role for colleges and universities is to eductae students in the narrow classroom sense of education: what planet do you live on?

[%sig%]

[John]

Dear Anonymous,

You don't need to apologize for any lack of clarity.  You made your point crystal clear when you said, "This endless polarizing and propaganda serves no purpose except to get Republicans elected."

[%sig%]

[Why?]

"And for those of you who keep asserting that the only legitimate role for colleges and universities is to eductae students in the narrow classroom sense of education: what planet do you live on?"



This is exactly what I was talking about: This person is so lacking in self-control and understanding of the teaching profession that (s)he simply cannot distinguish between education and political indoctrination.  In fact, education is so far from this person's understanding that (s)he thinks educators live on another planet. Until staff involved in the proposal acquire a minimum of self-control necessary to trust them with the task, allowing such people to simply browbeat students politically is completely lacking in intelligence and decency.

[Anonymous]

"The Clark Kerr Lecture Series on the Role of Higher Education in Society will continue several of the threads that have been woven into the work of Clark Kerr himself over the past half-century and more. He has written and spoken widely concerning the role of higher education in developing citizens for a democracy, in providing a well-trained labor force and new knowledge for a complex economy, in ensuring widespread opportunities for advancement in an increasingly meritocratic society, and in encouraging personal growth and satisfaction for all individuals through liberal education. The interaction of universities and society, the boundaries of each, the external conditions and support necessary for a thriving academic enterprise, all have been topics of his interest, and the establishment of the Lecture Series will ensure continued attention to these important issues in the years to come."

    Marian Gade, Clark Kerr's long-time research associate and a researcher at the Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley


I would draw attention to the first role listed here: "developing citizens for a democracy." This point seems especially germane to the current discussion. I do not condone political indoctrination or browbeating students and I can't figure out what I've written here that would lead someone to conclude that I do. My point is that universities have a number of important roles in our society, and classroom education is only one aspct of the higher education enterprise. Even a cursory review of the history of American higher education demonstrates that the role of "developing citizens for a democracy" always has been central. It is perfectly consistent with this role for colleges to encourage students to vote and to make it easier for them to do so.

[Why?]

"The right wing constantly characterizes higher education as a hot bed of
radical left wing politics and indoctrination, often citing ludicrous
anecdotes and rarely citing any credible data. Nearly every one of these
forums is filled with right wing rants about the oppressiveness of left
wing academics. Where are all those loony leftists?"


"I do not condone political indoctrination or browbeating students and I
can't figure out what I've written here that would lead someone to
conclude that I do."




There is no room for misunderstanding your position. This is not measured,
reasoned rhetoric here. Nor are your strange accusations in any way
substantiated. No one is confused about what you are saying. You are part
of the reason why people strongly oppose allowing university employees to
force unreasoned, immoderate political opinion on defenseless students.

[%sig%]

[Katherine Taft]

I believe that in most ways- having colleges to enforce voting on the youth is great, but what good does this do?  At the age of seventeen- I am proud to live in America but the value of politics are low in the United States public schools. I have watch many 18-24 yr. olds give their vote to per se "Look Cool" or have it on their record that they are a competent citizen of the US.  These so called youth voters have no clue of what they are voting for nor do they care.  I do believe that having a right to vote at 18 is good, but what good is it if they have no clue what they are voting for?  Most 18 year olds are naive and yet love the right of voting because the state says they have done something worth their time.  Take for instance, President Kerry is a "all Hollywood Man".  He takes the minds of young ones and glamors up the poles in order to cheat out the real reason for election days that come.  I have realized that this is politics but what is the true reason for voting and to have a president that will not just take care of the wonderous things to come for the young generation, but also take care of the real life problems that these naive children are about to face.  In conclusion- the government should put in more political teachings or take out the 18-24 yr. age group from the voting booths.

[%sig%]