OCR Text |
Show UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OPINION !PAGE 13 LETTERS Let's leave HS TO THE EDITOR: I write this letter in regard to education and the stupidity of its character. I am 19 years old and flustered by the fact that I've spent the majority of my life in a hard plastic chair , fighting to keep my eyes open as a smug little man or woman lectures about molecules , or the square root of x+3. Of course there have been things I've learned ~hich do pertain to my life and have helped me out, but those were the basics that have been repeatedly taught for 13 years. I think I've got it down by now. So , I guess what I'm getting at is sim ply a question of why we have to start all over again Qnce we get to college . Isn't this supposed to be referred to . as a higher education? • College is said to be the schooling for your career, hence training for your future . Why not follow those guidelines? I've taken math and English for as long as I can remember , so why should two more years be any different in helping me with .ffly future career? Take my choice of c.areer for example. I plan to enter the medical field and work in the radiology department. It's obvious those two years could be better spent learning th·e anatomy and physiology of the human body , or perhaps procedures in working medical equipment. Now, I know I'm not some genius who was the first to ponder this situation. In fact, I guarantee it's been considered by just about everyone . I just happen to be extremely ·fed up with it. The requirement of completing two years of generals before actually entering your. major courses is absolutely ridiculous and was already accomplished during my first 13 years of school. It is ludicrous that we keep going on this way. I know of many people who have dropped out or are -definite prospects for dropping out simply because of the "hi gh school all over again" idea. It just isn't worth my life savings to hear once again that the first letter of each sentence should be capitalized. I know I'm just one small voice in a large society, but it is my hope that this letter can in some way help make a difference for those in the future. Kristi Turner Alternatives · are_necessary TO THE EDITOR: watch the R-rated version. Have you noticed that edited versions of R-rated movies aren't on video store shelves? Why aren't alternate-rated movies available at local movie .theatres? If the minority succeeds in preventing non-R-rated movies from being shown at SUU, isn't that limiting students' choices instead of making more options available? The vocal minority doesn't want their choices squashed , but certainly don't mind trampling on those alternatives that make more choices available to all . MONDAY, DECEMBER 4 , 2000 A failure to communicate "What we have here is failure to communicate." Those words, uttered by Strother Martin as the prison farm captain in the classic 1967 film Coo/ Hand Luke, became, for several years, a catch-phrase to describe and to excuse the exercise of any unrighteous display of power. It may well describe what's going on here today at SUU. Another phrase that may explain what is going on is "double-dealing.· But, perhaps, the phrase ·exercising caution and discretion· also fits. On Thursday, the SUU Faculty Senate moved into executive session, closing its meeting to the public (which means anybody who is not an elected member of the bod.y) for the purpose of discussing "personnel matters.· That reasoning is the stated purpose for "executive session " or 5l · secret" meetings of more than a few of the faculty 1md administrative entities here who desire to speak about any matters they wish without the prying eyes or ears of others on campus. Such others perhaps consist of the president on down to the lowliest student one "D " away from dismissal from the university, or that student's representative: the J<;>umal. This closed meeting procedure is an exception to the Utah State Code for Open Meetings, or the " Sunshine Law ,· (Utah Code - Title 52 - Chapter 04 ) which serves to allow the public to know what business its governing and serving bod ies are conducting in its best interests (and with its funds). Now, it is commendable that the faculty senate would go to the trouble to attempt to follow the open meetings law. It, at least, displays a desire to go through the motions. But closing a "public" meeting requires that the body do so for legislatively prescribed purposes, ranging from the strategy of selling property to discussions of deployment of security personnel, devices or systems to, of course, these "personnel matters." In truth, though, voting for such a closure to discuss "personnel matters· is not a valid reason. The law states that such discussion shall be about "the character, professional competence, or physi~al or mental health of an individual.· Are any of those items the reason for closing a meeting for "personnel matters"? That's a good question, because those outside the meeting have no idea whether that body is following the rule of the law. In fact, the law is circumvented to begin with in this case because, according to that law, "the person presiding shall sign a sworn statement affirming that the sole purpose for closing the meeting was to discuss the character, professional competence , or physical or mental health of an individual." Failure to provide such a statement constitutes violation of the Utah Code, which can result in criminal proceedings against that presiding person just as could misrepresenting the truth in such a statement. In short, under current procedures at SUU, the faculty senate or any other such body on campus can close a meeting, ostensibly to discuss "personnel matters· and can, in fact, discuss any item it chooses and the public is powerless to stop it. The public , faculty , staff, administration and student body must accept the word of the body on faith alone. However, there is a deeper and potentially more sinister matter involved here. That is, that under the law and seemingly unknown to them, these bodies, short of the Board of Trustees, are not required to vote to go into "executive session ." The President's Council, which meets weekly, is not required to allow any visitors of any kind to its discussions and deliberations-and does not. The fact is, the faculty senate is not a public body as outlined by the law. The faculty senate makes no law. It makes no policy. It spends no public funds. The faculty senate has no real public power ; it can make only recommendations for a more weighty body to act or fail to act upon . In short, it is -not important or powerful enough to fall under the open meetings section of the Utah Code. It can conduct its "business · at an unannounced barbecue on member Bob Eves' patio if it desires. :Ho[iaay Season Lif;g, '1{p Otlur... Of course, the Journal has learned that the primary discussion during the closed meeting was to prepare to propose to the Board of Regents that the body conduct an evaluation more randomly and broad based than those seen in recent years here. At least two additional personnel items were discussed in the executive session. This information hasn't been communicated expressly to us and we , like most every entity and individual on campus, must specu late or depend upon inside and privileged sources. Reasons for keeping such discussions private are many. Discretion spares the fear of reprisal and protects the reputation of the subject at hand. Discretion is entirely understandable. Discontent usually grows and spreads at a slow pace, fueled by many and varied discussions. The public need not know of all of these ·meetings.· So, is it best to hold what might be considered "public" meetings in "private"? It would seem that. if true, the idea of asking for a more objective evaluation is no boldly confrontational step from which faculty members should shrink. Assuredly, the body chooses not to reveal the context of the discussion. Virtually to. a member, the response to the question of what went on in the Thursday meeting was "I am not at liberty to discuss that." . Such a conspiracy of silence would extend as the directed answer , one must presume , tp the faculty senate's true constituents: the faculty as a whole. Is the faculty senate serving the fatuity? Who knows? Who knows? That's the question of the day, because what we have here is failure to communicate. Without taking too much space , I'd like to comment on the movie "censorship" issue. Most of the recent writers in favor of banning edited movies on campus have a very compelling argument. The majority should not always dictate what is being shown . True, I wholeheartedly agree, but think about the following for a moment. None of the theatres in town offer the same version of a movie that is not R-rated. SUU is the - The foregoing is the opinion of the Journal as a single only place locally where enUty. students can enjoy the movie free of whatever THIS IS THE FINAL ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL FOR FALL SEMESTER, 1000. PRINTING OF THE JOURNAL c.o.n:i p ~ 1.s. .q, ~ m _t.o. .n.o.t . . • . . . . . . . .Bill Justesen . .W.I~~ ~E.S~l?\E.IN JANUA~Y .Wrl'.'1:1.1'.'l:IJ.~JKJ'. I.SJU.E OH JAH . .8 , ..200:1. HAPP.Y HOLIJ>.A.YS.. .S.UJJ.L-... I• |