YOU! I need your help! PLEASE READ ME

Fellow comrades:

For my semester-long story, I am doing a piece on if there is a "silent majority" of right-leaning students.
To find out more, I NEED YOUR HELP!

If you know of any friends and/or acquaintances on campus who feel "silenced," who are right-leaning but don't display it and/or feel they can't/shouldn't, or even those who are vocal about it, etc., can you please give me their name and/or contact information?

You can talk to me in class, or (preferably) email me at: s13.agreiwe@wittenberg.edu

I would be forever grateful to you!

If you have any ideas/suggestions, please feel free to leave me some comments.

THANK YOU!

p.s. I really like this graphic!

Do You Want to Come Up With a Story Idea for Me?

1. Wittenberg College Republicans: have you seen them? Heard of them? I'm a senior and remember them my freshman year, but I can't say I have seen/and or heard them in the past couple of years.

As we talked about in class, this group seems to be MIA. Again, my semester-long story will explore if there is (or isn't) a silent majority on campus. However, I think this topic is a story in itself. Plus, I may be able to use snippets of this story for my main one -- if that's not considered double-dipping. 

I can contact Jon Duraj to see if they have a President and/or talk to the College Democrats' President (and/or members). I also would interview a couple of kids regarding the College Republicans.

2. Another story idea is to explore the Wittenberg Tiger GAME Plan Initiative that "aims to exceed expectations for scholar-athletes and their families." This is the only NCAA D-III program of its kind and was established to ensure Witt student-athletes are set for life-long success. 

I would obviously have to contact the person in charge of this initiative and interview a few student-athletes in the program.  Personally, I think it's very admirable how these students love to play the sports they do but value their education more-so (well, in most cases). 

3. Next, I thought about doing an advance story on Nick Flynn, the Amerian writer, poet and playwright set to visit Wittenberg next week as a part of the Witt series. I thought I could provide some background information on him and this could incentivize other students (besides Engligh majors) to go to this. 

A few other story ideas are in the works in my brain right now, but that's what I've got for now! Until tomorrow. 

Facebook: It Really Is Just the Face of It All

Like any other college student, I use Facebook as a procrastination and stalking tool. Lately, I've come to realize that Facebook is doing me more harm than actual good.

Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is great for staying in touch with friends all over the globe. This is especially the case for me, since I made friends when I went abroad to Ireland and last semester when I interned in Washington, DC. Not many people use their cell phones anymore, and if cell phones are used, it's more likely for a text than a call. I like getting calls still; they're more personal and easier to decipher than text messages.

Back to my main point, though.

Facebook has put a strain on many relationships in my life, and in addition, it can make me be hard on myself. I find myself comparing my life to others' posts on Facebook, via pictures, status updates, city/country check-ins, etc. It's no good to play the "what if" game; how would my life be different had I not gone to Wittenberg, for instance? I sometimes check in (a.k.a. creep) on many people, including ex-boyfriends. And that, frankly, is just not healthy.

So my question to my audience is this: Does Facebook make you play the "what if" game as well? Do you compare yourself to others via Facebook?

Not many people will post what's wrong with their lives on Facebook. In fact, I think the most active users on Facebook (you know, the ones that update their status every five minutes and comment on everything) are often the ones who need the most self-assurance that their life is above average. It's no good competing over whose life is better through bragging rights on Facebook. In fact, this gets quite annoying and makes me think of that user as a surface (or face) person. Hence, Facebook might be just perfect for that type of person.

Have you ever thought about deleting your Facebook? Where would you be without it? I urge you to try to go without Facebook for a week -- just see how you feel.

I met a friend a few weeks ago and we had a great conversation. Naturally, I wanted to find him on Facebook but couldn't find his profile. I asked him about it and he goes, "that's because I don't have one, Allie." After my initial shock, (I mean, after all, who doesn't have Facebook now-a-days? Even my mom has one -- unfortunately) I realized I admired this about him. Here's a good guy who is completely comfortable with himself and doesn't feel he needs to show his life off to others via Facebook. This gives me hope in that people are still realizing the value of in-person contact rather than just social media outlets.

Think about how your life has changed because of social media, for the better or worse. Like I said, there are hundreds of reasons why Facebook is a good thing. But, have you ever thought about going beyond the "face" of Facebook and really thinking about what it's doing to you?

Conservative College Students: Are They The Silent Majority?

In journalism, sometimes the things left unsaid and/or unseen are important as the things that are said/seen. I noticed this was the case with Wittenberg students and their political opinions.

As we talked about in class, many students could not necessarily pinpoint why they felt an aversion to politics; they just knew there was that aversion. Perhaps students just don't like being it shoved in their face and/or they feel they genuinely can't identify with either party.

Moreover, I want to investigate and see if there is perhaps a right or center-right silent majority on campus.

As Champ brought up in his blog, where are the Romney and Ryan supporters? Perhaps they're there but they aren't making themselves visible. A couple weeks ago, at the Student Activities Fair on campus, the College Democrats were making themselves both seen and heard - very much so. Absent were the College Republicans. This begs the question: is this organization even still on campus?

The stereotype is that many college students are liberal and that the faculty is as well. Do students feel pressured to have liberal views because of this stereotype and are afraid to go against status quo?

Like I mentioned in one of my previous blogs, the economy was not brought up among Witt students. This is the number one issue on most Americans' minds. I, for instance, think this is THE most important issue in the election and think that the Republicans have some good things to say in regards to the deficit. But if I admit this I can be accused by fellow students as being "heartless" simply because a few of my Republican views.

I grew up in a household that valued hard work ethic and I'm not ashamed to say my parents raised me with predominantly Republican values. I don't think I'd be where I am today without that upbringing so I can't say I think the Republican party is completely off-kilter. Then I ask myself: why are students ashamed to admit that they are right-leaning? Conversely, I was raised on some Democrat values as well and don't consider myself close-minded when it comes to politics. Throughout college, I started to shape opinions on my own accord and observations/inferences.

This is a very interesting topic to me and I'd like it to be my semester-long story. I hope to create a survey using survey monkey to ask students about their own political views as well as their perceptions on Wittenberg's student body and faculty's political inclinations.
Dr. James Allan, Comparative Politics professor, once gave my Methods class a survey rating our political views. As it turned out, our class was mostly center-right which was a shock to us but not to him. I'd like to interview him and perhaps get him to do this for me in some of his classes this year.

I hope my readers find this as interesting as I do, and I that's saying something since I know there's generally already an aversion to this topic. I think this is a challenge for me as well as my audience; it's bringing forth issues that normally we as students don't necessarily like to talk about.

Does God Belong in the Public School System?

The Democratic Party was confronted by V.P. bid Paul Ryan about the “absence of God from their platform.” This begs the question: where does God fit into the equation in politics? Further, should God be brought up in the public system?

Here’s my take, specifically for the "school" question:

Two prevalent ideas about the origin of life are that of Creationism and Evolution. Creationism is based upon creation science, which uses religion and science to prove the origin of human life by God through a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Holy Bible. Evolution uses a strictly scientific basis to describe the origin of human life, and is considered a scientific theory. Evolution proposes that small changes happen in the genes of an organism, and overtime, an accumulation of these changes produces a substantial difference resulting in the emergence of a new species.

The debate here is whether or not Creationism should be taught in the public school system, and if this would violate students’ freedoms explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. The First and Fourteenth Amendments give religious liberty to all, and protect individuals from discrimination based on their privately held religious beliefs. Thus, would teaching Creationism, a fundamentally religious concept, be unconstitutional?

If parents want their children to learn about Creationism, why not send their kids to private, religious schools? Answer: private school tuition. Along with many other factors that Creationists have brought to light.

There are many valid arguments made by Creationists as to why creation science should be taught side-by-side with Evolution in the classroom. Creationists argue that Creationism should be taught in the public school system to maintain objectivity for students and to allow them to come to their own educated conclusions. Both should be presented as valid options, and should be discussed with balanced time. They may claim that since Evolution and Creationism deal with the origins, they are not observable events that can be tested with the scientific method. No humans were there to observe how humans came to be and how matter was created. As a result, both should be regarded as scientific models within which students can predict and coordinate the observed facts. These scientific models cannot be proven or tested true, only compared.

Creationist scientists claim that the public schools can present both [Evolution and Creationism] in a way as to not violate the Constitution’s protection against an establishment of religion, because it would use scientific evidence to make its claim for creation science.

However, when one looks into the true characteristics of science, one can observe that creation science fails by legal and academic standards. A theory is “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.” A hypothesis is “a mere assumption or guess.” In other words, a theory holds more scientific weight than a hypothesis. Evolution therefore is not just a mere guess, but is backed up scientific data that supports it.

The case McLean vs. the Arkansas Board of Education, 1987, dealt in part with the essential characteristics of science, as defined by the scientific community. Science “has to be guided by natural law; has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; is testable against the empirical world; its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and it is falsifiable.”

Creation science is the science used by Creationists to explain the origin of human life, and it fails by these standards. It embraces a concept of creation based on a supernatural intervention, not guided by the natural laws of science. Thus, creation science is not testable and is not falsifiable. Creation science is confident in the literal interpretation of Genesis, and is absolute with this notion and is not subject to revision.

Legal precedent also supports the notion that Creationism is inherently religious. In the case of McLean vs. the Arkansas Board of Education, Federal District Judge William R. Overton ruled that the Arkansas Creation Science law was a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his ruling, Judge Overton said that, “No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of movement, of which the public schools are most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.”

It’s important to note that teachers need not to present Evolution as a way to discredit the notion of a god of any kind; they would present this theory based on scientific fact, not religious fact. If a teacher’s religious views directly conflict with that of creation science, it can have on affect on him or her as well. Some teachers may feel that creation science is academically unsound. If a teacher considered creation science academically unsound, it could dissuade that teacher from ever bringing up Evolution in discussion for fear of giving creation science balanced time (if implemented).

This would in turn have consequences for students; especially those who would plan to further their education in college. Topics in science such carbon-dating in chemistry, the age of the earth in geology, and the relationship among living things in modern biology are based upon the theory of Evolution. Depriving students of this fundamental part of their scientific education in high school is depriving them of their overall education. This would especially have an effect in the pre-professional and pre-health programs in the health sciences.

The general rule currently is for Evolution to only be taught as a scientific fact in the classroom, while Creationism is not to be taught that way. This rule should continue to be implemented. The Supreme Court has ruled it “unconstitutional to restrict an educator’s right to teach Evolution.” Creationism should not be taught in public schools, due to the violation of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause.

Evolution is based upon scientific evidence whereas Creationism relies on evidence from the Bible. Evolution is a scientific theory, and creation science has a religious basis. Evolution does not have to offend any religious individual since it uses empirical evidence to make its claims. Creationism may be brought up in the classroom as a comparative method as to how some humans believe life began, but it should not be taught as a theory. This is to protect an individual regardless of his or her religious affiliation. Teaching Creationism would be using U.S. tax dollars and government administrations to foist religion inferences upon students within a public school system.

College Students: the Demographic that is Ignored and Ignores

This piece is an expansion on my last blog, 

titled "Turning Your Head Won't Make It Go Away"

Candidates who want to attract the young vote, primarily 18-24 year-olds, have the difficult task of making politics exciting and interesting. There are many reasons for overwhelmingly poor voting turnout from this age range, but it is mostly because very few candidates attempt to reach these voters and are largely out of touch with this demographic.

However, candidates need to recognize just how integral their votes are. Consider this example:

At the University of Minnesota, twin cities, there is a student organization called Student DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor). It’s objective is to get Democrats elected. In the 2004 Presidential Election, Student DFL launched a successful Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign that included door knocking for candidates and performing literature drops for the entire party. The campaign produced an 80% turn out on campus.

Overall, getting involved in a student organization like this (disregarding political affiliation) helps not just the candidates get votes; it helps (and will help) the students themselves. Members of such organizations not only build their resume, but they gain experience and valuable insight into the workings of the political world.

This may just be what the candidates need to preach to this demographic: how being involved and voting benefits “me as well as you.”

As a college kid one joins a club for the enjoyment as well as the perks. Whether it’s professional development, networking events and/or leadership opportunities, a club will be an asset to the student as well as candidate. Thus, the candidate needs to think like a college student and appeal to these kinds of aspirations that young voters have.

The right, especially, is not doing a good enough job at appealing to these voters. Many generally think that institutions of higher learning are left-leaning in nature and their students are left-leaning by default. However, one needs to take into consideration the right, and perhaps even more importantly, the center-right that may comprise the silent majority of a college campus.

This begs the question: how does the center-right appeal to its constituents? Candidates could focus on fiscal responsibility and the debt –how the retirement of their parents and the financial obligation of paying for their social security seems like an impending doom on an already downtrodden job market. This may shed a whole new light on government spending and its slippery slope.

So, why aren’t candidates appealing to this age group? And/or, why aren’t politics appealing to college kids? One simple answer may be that college students are just not interested. Another is that they are made to feel unimportant because they think candidates aren’t addressing their needs.

Moreover, college kids may just not be informed enough about the issues at hand. Instead of just being offered views and spots in clubs at their respective colleges that are left-leaning, it would be a beneficial to provide right-leaning clubs. This way students are exposed to differing view points so they can make their own objective decisions – rather than just listening to what their professors and/or parents say and taking it as absolute fact (which is a whole different story).

College kids are consumers, too –consumers of education. Why not try to educate a group that is used to hearing lectures and forced to analyze costs and benefits, whether it be through writing a term paper or handling a real-life situation? College aged-voters need to make their own informed decisions and candidates can help achieve this by speaking at an array of colleges and helping to implement/fund such clubs/organizations on campuses.

Candidates could preach that even though it’s easy to tune-out politics, it’s so important to realize it’s your future and money at stake. When already in debt from student loans, emphasizing the importance of the economy and making smart choices to earn back that money will not go in one ear and out the other. Students put ample amounts of money and time into college in the hopes they land a job and make good money upon graduation; thus their political decisions, and their peers’, affect them first-hand.

All in all, candidates need to realize they are targeting different audiences all around the country and he/she can’t ignore the 18-24 year old demographic. Likewise, this demographic shouldn’t, and really can’t, ignore the candidates that have control of many factors that will strongly influence their lives whether it be now or in the future.

I urge both college students, and young voters in general, to get to know the facts, get involved, and get out and vote. Somehow, in some way, politics affects everyone.  Young voters are in college and putting in the time, money, and work to be successful. Let’s make sure that their college experiences are not in vain; and that their voting power is used to make wise decisions.

Turning Your Head Won’t Make It Go Away

I’m a political science major and even I’m sick of politics – just like, what seems to be, the rest of the Wittenberg student body.

The government is indeed so bipartisan right now that this election seems to be more about good guy versus bad guy instead of about the policies/issues at hand. There is an overwhelming amount of wariness in regards to the upcoming Presidential election.

Students brought up important issues like student loans, the healthcare bill (that just recently passed its individual mandate) and women’s rights.

However, astonishingly, the economy was not even mentioned. Ask a regular citizen what’s the most important issue facing the nation today, and he/she will most likely respond “the economy.”

Are students at Wittenberg aware that after college, they will be faced with one of the worst job markets in history?

How are they going to pay off student loans?

As their parents, the baby boom generation, continue to age, how are they going to pay for Medicare, Social Security, etc.?

These are some major issues and students at Wittenberg don’t seem to be interested in and/or aware of them. Moreover, perhaps of worst of all, they don’t even seem to care. 

Erin Harte mentioned that she would like to see Americans, including students at Wittenberg, become more aware. What’s it going to take, though?

Students seem to feel that even though they have the right to vote, it doesn’t matter. In fact, many might not even vote and feel that if he/she votes for a third party candidate, that vote wouldn’t “count” anyway.

If students don’t want to hear about politics because they feel the candidates are so insincere in the good v. bad guy game, I’m not sure how either candidate will reach the generation X voters.