Page 4
www.dailycampus.com
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Daily Campus Editorial Board
Melanie Deziel, Editor-in-Chief Arragon Perrone, Commentary Editor Ryan Gilbert, Associate Commentary Editor Michelle Anjirbag, Weekly Columnist Tyler McCarthy, Weekly Columnist Jesse Rifkin, Weekly Columnist
» EDITORIAL
Academic competitions facilitate effective learning
O
n the first Saturday of the fall semester, the University of Colorado held its first annual Windward / C.U. Code War, an all-day computer programming competition. For hours, 24 students battled to create the best solution to a programming problem. Winning, having fun and improving their skills were the only incentives. At the day’s end, students supported holding another competition next year. Other universities, including UConn, could use this dose of healthy competition for the sake of learning, regardless of monetary incentives. Many students view their skills as mere tools to a well-paying career, and in this inhospitable job market, students have little choice. Jobs are a necessity; if a graduate enjoys his or her work, that’s a bonus. These C.U. undergraduates, however, are focusing not only on the rewards of their careers, but on their personal enjoyment and the value created. Perhaps such a positive, competitive feeling is a luxury these days, but it is a sentiment that colleges should foster. In C.U.’s code war, there were no deadlines, no grades and no monetary prize. Students volunteered to be in the competition. When the competition finished, there was a winner and losers, but everyone improved their skills through participating. This attitude flies in the face of anti-competitive attitudes in academia. Despite many undergraduates’ wishes, students are not entitled to grades; they earn them. Ideally, undergraduates develop their skills to use them, not simply to receive a degree. If students do not exercise their skills outside of the classroom, they will lose them. In addition, not wanting to exercise certain professional skills may be a sign for students to reconsider their careers. UConn offers some competitive opportunities resembling C.U.’s code war. The UConn Marketing Club recently offered a competition called improv marketing. Members received a short amount of time to organize and deliver a convincing sales pitch. Again, there were no punishments for failure: learning requires failure, so why punish it? Journalism students also enjoy the occasional “sudden death” assignment, during which they have just over an hour to conceptualize a story, interview individuals and write it. Perhaps a similar competition extended over a Saturday would reduce the stress but maintain the thrill. Departments and clubs could implement events such as those mentioned above. Learning can involve more than sitting in a cramped lecture hall or listening to a teacher between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., Monday through Friday. Real learning comes from an internal desire to improve, and that passion should spill out into every day. Fun, competitive events can structure this passion and bring together like-minded people who share an equal passion for their work. UConn, love the learning. Be creative so developing skills won’t be a chore anymore, but might actually be a blast. The Daily Campus editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper and its editorial board. Commentary columns express opinions held solely by the author and do not in any way reflect the official opinion of The Daily Campus.
Am I the only one that wants CampusPD to come film at UConn? (I’ve been instructed to spell boss correctly) The USG Funding Board Chairperson is Nostradamus. He saw it coming. Like a boss. Don’t put the parentheses in. Storrs, you really know how to get a girl wet. I have an AIM just so I can submit to the InstantDaily. You still plague me InstantDaily, although I graduated, I still think of clever Instant Dailies. Am I still eligible? Note to the Administration: if you need to notify the student body, put it in the InstantDaily To the girl who laughed at me today as I carefully edged past the squirrel who ambushed me near my dorm: One day the squirrels will rule this place. Microwaved rice krispies treats: a culinary masterpiece It’s hard not to judge a 6’10” guy wearing spandex pants... even when it’s Andre Drummond. Wait, has everyone seen this YouTube video? It’s called “Friday” and it’s SO BAD. I thought I’d let everyone know they should see it today!
Send us your thoughts on anything and everything by sending an instant message to InstantDaily, Sunday through Thursday evenings. Follow us on Twitter (@ InstantDaily) and become fans on Facebook.
Facts need to be agreed upon in Washington
I
f the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts,” said the famed physicist Albert Einstein. This advice may also make him the world’s most intelligent political commentator, which, goodness knows, we need now. Somewhere during the last decade, it seems, politicians lost the ability to think in a rational way. Washington D.C. is not broken because politicians are too opinionated; Washington D.C. is broken because politicians cannot agree on facts. Absolute facts are enough for engineers, builders, doctors, plumbers and electricians, but they aren’t good enough for politicians. No, economics may be based on logical, rational truths, but not in Washington D.C. From that black hole of reason, facts are manipulated, twisted and at times even made up. Without absoBy Arragon Perrone lute facts, buildings Commentary Editor would collapse and roads would crumble. Surgeries would be impossible because the patient would die while the surgeons argued over procedure. Economics relies on certain facts as well. One does not have to be a Harvard graduate to understand these facts, yet, our President’s top economic advisers seem unaware. And, as we know, our current economic stagnation reveals just how valuable these “geniuses” are. Calculating profit and measuring risk is complex and, therefore, may require intricate theories. Raising money and promoting good business practices are not so convoluted. You see, when a government does not have enough money, it needs to raise taxes. When a government spends too much money, it needs to cut spending. And when business taxes and confusing regulations make start-ups too expensive, causing young entrepreneurs to move to better climates, the government
reevaluates these regulations’ effectiveness. But when politicians need jobs, they are willing to twist reality. In the political world, when one controls the distribution of power, one controls reality. Nothing is too expensive for the people who print the money. Nothing is unwise for a person with a degree and a Nobel Prize to convince him that he’s always right. Certain politicians suggest that government requires more regulations and more spending. Others suggest that raising taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners is “class warfare,” even though these millionaires pay a lesser rate, with tax deductions, than the middle-class. If the public wants to continue listening to these politicians, the alleged cream of America’s intellectual crop, the public can go ahead and spend more money, refuse to cut regulations and maintain corporate welfare, and continue to see our economy collapse. Facts suggest that both mainstream republican and democratic economic policies are, well, wrong. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our economy has gotten worse since President Bush’s bailout and President Obama’s stimulus: Poverty is up for the fourth straight year, to 15.1 percent. Youth employment (for those between ages 16 and 29) is at 55.3 percent, the lowest level since World War II ended and a 12 percent decrease from 2000. Also, the number of people without health insurance increased 0.2 percent, or 50 million people, since last year. The jump, according to CBS News reports, is “mostly due to decreases in employee-provided insurance.” It’s so comforting to know that government-run healthcare and federal spending has done the trick. On the bright side, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” created 2,200 jobs for the Census Bureau. At the same time, Republicans are not off the
hook. Conservatives have vehemently criticized President Obama’s proposed “Buffet Rule,” which dares to suggest that Americans who make over $1 million should pay the same tax rate as the middle-class. Currently, the wealthiest of the wealthy pay fewer taxes because of certain strategic property tax deductions. In layman’s terms, the ultra-wealthy pay less money to the government so they can spend more money on items like multiple homes. The alternative to the “Buffet Rule,” some conservatives argue, is to cut Medicare and Social Security. Without treading into the world of government social spending, this column is not to suggest that Medicare and Social Security do not need reform. As the nation is learning, the government cannot simply afford to maintain the current system. But what this column is arguing is that preferring to cut Medicare and Social Security before making the ultra-rich pay the same as the struggling middle-class (to which many UConn students belong) is not very rational. Of course, the estimated $1.5 billion in savings comes from White House projections and, as discussed above, 50 million more people are without health insurance this year. Current facts, not talking points or pundits’ opinions, reveal major gaps in both political parties’ economic proposals. Still, being quite intelligent, educated and skillful rhetoricians, they will convince you that the sky really is green. To counteract this scheme, citizens must beware the fact-changers. Embrace reason, no matter what the experts say to the contrary. Remember, when a politician finds a fact he disagrees with, he can change it.
Commentary Editor Arragon Perrone is a 7th-semester English and political science double major. He can be reached at Arragon.Perrone@UConn.edu.
Davis execution a blatant violation of human rights
T
he execution of Troy Davis on Sept. 21, calls into question the justice within America’s legal system. Twenty-two years ago Troy Davis was convicted of killing a police officer in Savannah, Ga. Like many others on death row, Davis cried innocent. What sets his case apart from other cases is the issue of reasonable doubt. Supporters of By Brittany Kerr Davis, such Amnesty Staff Columnist as International, are calling Davis’ trial unfair because he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis’ trial and subsequent execution is not just an issue of legal rights but also an issue of human rights. The trial violated Davis’ human rights as outlined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To understand how Troy Davis’ human rights were violated, it’s important to look at the facts of the case. According to Amnesty USA, Troy Davis was accused of shooting Mark MacPhail, an officer trying to defend a homeless man. However, there are was no gun or evidence linking Davis to the crime scene. Also, of the nine
QW uick
it
witnesses that testified against Davis, seven recanted. In light of these facts there is no way to prove Davis’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required in any trial. An article in USA Today, “Troy Davis Executed; Supporters Cry Injustice,” points out the U.S. Supreme Court decision to have Davis “establish clear” innocence. Instead of being assumed innocent until proven guilty, Davis was assumed guilty until proven innocent.
“This case shows that America does not yet ensure the human rights of all citizens” Not only was this trial unconstitutional, but it also violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This document outlines the human rights of all individuals, and was first adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. The declaration was in response to
“R epublicans
the inhumane events of World War II and outlines the social, political and economic rights of an individual. Article 10 and 11 of the UDHR are most important in the discussion of Troy Davis. Article 10 states that everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing. Article 11 states that everyone has a right to be innocent until proven guilty. In executing Davis without evidence of reasonable doubt, he was deprived of a fair hearing. Also, because Davis’ attorneys were required to prove innocence, Article 11 is clearly violated. This case shows that America does not yet ensure the human rights of all citizens. According to an article in the Eastern Echo, “Execution of Troy Davis unfair,” Davis’ case gained many supporters, including prominent individuals such as Jimmy Carter and the Pope. In addition, more tjam one million people signed the petition to grant Davis’ clemency. One of the largest supporters of Davis’ case was Amnesty International. In a National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Amnesty International’s Laura Moye, she explains how Davis’ case became an international plea for clemency. There were two
other men executed in the same week as Davis. However, Davis’ case was different in that there was reasonable doubt. This case has caught the attention of the wider community because it shows a clear violation of human rights. The involvement of race within this case cannot be ignored. The Davis Case is significant to the African American community because it represents the struggles of African Americans within the legal system. As Moye pointed out, one in three African American men are caught in the criminal justice system at least once in their lives. Unfortunately, most of these men, guilty or not, are not granted a fair trial. Davis’ case points to the larger problem: unfair treatment of African American males within the legal system. Although Davis is dead, his case is evidence of the flaws in our justice system. It forced us realize that our legal system does not yet uphold the human rights of all individuals.
Staff Columnist Brittany Kerr is a 5th-semester history and individualized double major and a UNESCO student ambassador. She can be reached at Brittany.Kerr@UConn.edu
are having trouble luring G ov . C hris the presidential race . T hey should try pie .” –D avid
C hristie into L etterman