January 25, 2006
-
MAJOR: Sociology 101, Politics 101, Philosophy 101, Copyright Law 101
COURSE: The role of individuals and governements in shaping society
TIME: Reading this entry should take 5-10min., more if you follow links and take time to reflect, and respond.
ASSIGNMENT: Give examples of what small portions of society looks like in the year 2006. Explain how government or individuals play a role in shaping the way society looks. Finally, attempt to ponder whether or not your examples of society demonstrate a healthy society, a sick society, or a society that cannot be judged. Use any writing style and sources you see fit.
Before I went to college, one of the professions I was considering was journalism. At the time, there wasn’t anything specific I wanted to write about, but I enjoyed writing, and I was attracted to the sense of prestige that came from having a by-line at the end of an article. Unfortunately, Wash U. in St Louis did not offer an undergraduate degree in journalism. For most, the option of pursuing a journalistic career is delayed until after completing 4-years of college. I often wonder if the logic behind that makes any sense?
Steven Brill, a multi-millionaire who amongst other things, founded Court TV, has recently donated $1 million to Yale to add jouralism classes to its undergaraduate curriculum. While the dean of Yale’s undergraduate program was quick to note that this was not a journalism major, being that “elite” universities hold the (logical?) belief that vocational training should be secondary to liberal arts learning. Steven Brill’s program will bring in a professional journalist to teach a course on the subject, as well as bringing in a professional counselor to better guide students into the field of journalism, and will also subsidize those who pursue low-paying careers in journalism.
It’s this last point, that is more interesting to me. A wealthy individual, using his money to effect the job-making psychology of college students. With the support of Steven Brill, Yale students with an interest in journalism may pursue that passion, while those undecided or in other majors, may also decide that journalism is the field for them. Besides the nature of the work, the most important factor in improving the field of journalism by attracting more good journalists into the field, is to make it more lucrative. In this situation, private philanthropy is pulling the train.
Some notable quotes from the article:
“Alfred E. Guy Jr., director of the Yale College Writing Center, which will include the journalism program, said that besides offering instruction in writing, the program would encourage students to enter journalism at a time that “the whole tone of the culture over the past 20 years has been to denigrate work that doesn’t lead to instant riches.”
[THE ECONOMICS/PSYCHOLOGY OF CHOOSING A JOB]
“Some of Mr. Brill’s former students said they liked the real- world orientation in his class.”
[THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION]
A second topic of sociology that I’ve been brimming with excitement and joy about, is the topic of age in society. What constitutes “young,” or “old.” What are the expectations and roles of people of different ages in society? Or, the most important question in my eyes, “At what age can a person begin to be taken seriously, and to have an impact on society?”
At 24, I sometime feel young. I feel as though I’m just out of college, just starting my first real job, clearly, it will be some time before I make a splash in the world. I feel as though the people pulling the strings that create our society are all more powerful, intelligent, and of course, older than myself.
Andrew Jones (not the baseball player), is a 24-year old graduate from UCLA, whose name became known in the national media because of his efforts to pay students to gather information from lectures that demonstrate a liberal-leaning bias that intimidates and silences conservative viewpoints. UCLA has struck back by accusing Jones of violating school policy by taping lectures for political purposes, and possibly for violating copyright law.
If you’re in highschool reading this, you might not feel surprised to see a 24yr. old making news. If you’re in your 30′s, you might be thinking, “jeez…this kid is so young and doing so much,” and, if you’re my age, you’re probably thinking, “I can’t believe someone my age is doing this.”
This issue of age is interesting to me, because in about 10-20 years, my peer group will have their turn to run things. Policy makers, judges, business leaders, educators, etc. will all be my peer group. Already, many professional athletes are my peers. Those amazing college basketball players I grew up worshiping, are now young kids in my eyes. But…as a person begins to realize that they will get their turn to make a splash, and as they realize that there’s no age restriction to this, I’d expect more people to take on projects and challenges like Andrew Jones has.
For those of you who read these through till the end, I’ll leave you with a few more thoughts. I wonder, are Mr. Jones’ efforts to highlight what he views as a flaw in society, the best of efforts? Don’t they come off a bit sneaky, and accusatory? Might there be a better way to examine flaws in society, that don’t compromise civil discourse?
For example, part of this story has to do with the efforts of the right-wing conservative David Horowitz, who has tried to promote an Academic Bill of Rights into several states as a law that would prohibit partisan/political education. The reality, to me, is that there will always be partisan/political education, and legislation will not only fail to solve the problem, but is the wrong method of going about addressing it.
The problem Horowitz and Jones are addressing is a valid one. On most college campuses, when subjects that touch on politics are taught (history, economics, poli sci, sociology), they are taught with a liberal lean to them. While Horowitz would have you believe that the problem is that conservative views are not being presented, the reality is that he would prefer the lean to be towards the right. Ultimately, what needs to be done is to ensure that both sides have their views taught, so students can actually understand what they believe or don’t believe, and why!
In order to improve education, especially with regards to the inherent subjective nature of the social sciences, we need students learning as many views as possible, not just one or two. The way to do this, I believe, is not through legislation, and not through the courts. This needs to be done in a more natural, and civil way. Horowitz and Jones should be organizing “teach-ins” for liberals and conservatives, to be taught side-by-side with the Michael Moore liberals of the world. Bring in Jon Stewart, and bring in Bill O’Reilly, bring in Maureen Dowd and bring in Ann Coulter.
Ultimately…to answer the last question, not of this is good or bad, except as it pertains to my views of how society “should” look. Many people aren’t happy with the world today, and work to “improve” the world, or to make the world closer to “perfection.” But, I wonder, is there such a thing as a “perfect world?” I don’t think there can be, or should be. But, is there such a thing as a “better world,” both for the years that I’m alive, and for the generations to come. I think there is.
So…my thoughts on society is that society is alright, but could be better. It’s like going to a new restaurant and trying getting a steak (or a salad for you veggies out there). Sometimes you lick your lips and say, “This steak was the best,” and sometimes, you eat it and say, “That was actually a bit too much,” or “Could have been cooked a little better.” Point being, it’s just a steak, it’s just a meal, you eat it, and you try to enjoy it to the best of your abilities.
Things that appear “important,” I believe are important in the sense that
Comments (3)
On Journalism at Yale:
It sounds like the program there is doomed to fail. If it took a million dollar shot in the arm to get the program up and running, what funds will keep it afloat? From all outward appearances, Yale’s future journalism alumni will not further subsidize this department. Especially since they aren’t expected to make much money. I doubt very much that any other department will voluntarily slash their own budget to further a fledgling new department. Even more so in light of the undergraduate dean denigrating the program.
I am reminded of John D. Rockefeller’s dance with William Rainey Harper, president of the University of Chicago upon its second founding (the first one went bankrupt). Rockefeller donated the bulk of the seed money to open the university anew, and was adamant that the new school be able to financially support itself as soon as possible. “As soon as possible” proved to be more than five years and six million dollars later (the six million was Rockefeller’s cut, and that was the 1890’s value). Unless Mr. Brill plans on continuing an annual donation of one million dollars (or more), the department has a short shelf life at Yale.
I am also alarmed by Brill’s actions for another reason: He used his money to create a department of his choosing at a university. What if Brill had wanted to start a welding department? Or a small-engine-repair class? Would Yale have permitted it, just because he was ponying-up the dough? Is curriculum for sale? To let outside interests set the course of a university is deplorable. Mind you, not as reprehensible as the actions of T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State University ($165 million solely for athletics), but still cause for worry.
“In this situation, private philanthropy is pulling the train”…right over the edge of a cliff.
On Andrew Jones:
I am surprised neither by his youth, nor his choice to support a liberal platform and oppose a conservative one. I would be far more impressed if he was young and supporting conservative causes, or aged and supporting liberal endeavors, as either would be far outside of the norm. I do not think that UCLA will have much legal recourse if Mr. Jones is competent in this chore. It shouldn’t be too difficult for him to distill the liberal academic thoughts and arguments into something easily digestible and irrefutable (assuming such gems exist), but also into concepts so basic that no one entity could claim them as their own. But in spite of any and every point Mr. Jones might make, it won’t make his political position any more defensible, nor will it slow the ebb and flow between our two front-running parties. The perpetual tennis match between the dominant political parties hasn’t slacked since we first wiggled out from under King George’s boot, and the “final solution” isn’t anywhere in sight (and likely never will be).
His efforts don’t come off as sneaky or accusatory, but rather just another partisan attention-grab. And speaking of “partisan”, this is an excellent segue into my next point…
“Ultimately, what needs to be done is to ensure that both sides have their views taught, so students can actually understand what they believe or don’t believe, and why!”
(contrasted with)
“…we need students learning as many views as possible, not just one or two.”
(ironically followed shortly by)
“Bring in Jon Stewart, … Bill O’Reilly, … Maureen Dowd … Ann Coulter.”
I realize that bi-partisan politics has been America’s flavor of choice since the nation’s inception, and that escaping the trappings of a two-party system will likely prove to be an impossibility. Still, teaching only the extremisms of both parties may have the unintentional effect of telling students that there is no middle ground, no room for compromise. The vast majority of Americans are moderates, not radicals. Instead of fitting squarely into conservative or liberal camps, they fall into the area where the two Venn-diagram circles overlap. Yet without fail, the only voices thrust upon our countrymen (and countrywomen) are the voices of extremism. And whether through the smirking sarcasm employed by liberal pundits or the righteous shouting taken up by conservative blowhards, the “party lines” have been reduced to a marketing equation…whatever nets the most readers/listeners/viewers and/or stirs up the most controversy is king of the media. It is little wonder that the timid, reasoned voices of moderate masses are lost in the amplified howl of polarized American politics.
“…in about 10-20 years, my peer group will have their turn to run things.”
This is true, but not terribly remarkable. In ten to twenty years, the group of people “running” things will be just as striated and diverse a group as those who inhabit positions of power today. Just because ages are similar, does not mean views are similar as well. Your peer group is not infallible, and as legions before them, they will get their chance to fuck things up too. History promises everyone such a chance.
“But, is there such a thing as a “better world,” both for the years that I’m alive, and for the generations to come. I think there is.”
And you wondered why I called you an idealist. J
Political labels get so old after awhile. Let’s get rid of them and just believe what we choose to believe, not what some talking head on the tv screen tells us to believe.
After 4 years at a liberal arts college I thought I was a liberal, but now I realize that a lot of that rhetoric gets on my nerves. I’d rather consider myself open-minded and an idealist in action.
~Bethany
Kregg:
On Journalism at Yale:
I want to explore your criticisms of this new journalism project at Yale. You say it’s doomed to fail, which it may, but, at the same time, one could argue that not having a program at all was a failure, so the project is already a success. It took one wealthy philanthropic journalist to start it, I’m sure there’s the potential for the program to last. If this program did encroach on the budgets of other programs, I agree, this could become a touchy issue, but if this is simply a shot of surplus funds, then I’m for it! I’m not sure whether Mr. Brill will continue to fund this program, but programs require money, and if the program eventually dries up, then we’re simply back where we started.
The 2nd issue you bring up is interesting, regarding the use of private funding for schools. This very issue was written up in today’s NY Times, main section. Should a public school that’s stated purpose is to serve the public interest, and that takes tax money and serves the interest of tax payers, be permitted to receive money from private individuals? In this case, Yale is a private school, so it runs almost entirely on private donations. It’s curriculum, therefore, is dictated by those individuals who have donated money (and…supposedly those students paying $30,000/yr in tuition have some say in the school, since they’re the ones being educated after all). So, to answer your question, in private schools, curriculum is absolutely for sale. If I become a multi-millionaire, I intend to start a school of progressive education at my alma mater. While people who give money to buy curriculum do so out of selfish reason, in most cases I believe those reasons will benefit the student body by offering the choice of additional classes.
A big thing that doesn’t get discussed, is that on the college level, students have a great deal of choice (score one for capitalism). If a school has a great deal of classes with liberal professors, than part of the reason that school is still in existant is because there’s students that are choosing to take those classes. Although there are less conservative schools, conservatives have the freedom as well to choose the school they attend, as well as the classes.
Now…as I was saying in the labor dispute case, simply having the choice to leave doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that what we should be talking about is how to make things better (not ideal, as i’m not a dreamer/idealist, but better in the practical sense). Schools should be offering the widest range of choices, they should be like supermarkets in terms of choice. And you’re exactly right, not just liberal or conservative, but all the views in the middle and even outside those extremes.
You comment that “to let outside interests set the course of a university is deplorable.” Let me ask, whose interests should be setting the course of the university? The interests of students? The interests of American society, of the global society? And who should be setting those interests? Tax payers, those who can give money to support programs, those paying tuition, those who will teach?
My personal thoughts are that all that matters is how students are developing (I am also concerned w/ the continued development of teachers, not just for their ability to teach better, but because I don’t agree that the purpose of schooling is just to prepare people for careers, but rather I see life as one long exploration of life, and I sympathize as much w/ frustrated teachers as frustrated students). So…am I suspicious when a company like Coca-Cola decides to give my public highschool money, so long as we use their vending machines? Am I concerned when large companies like banks do the same? Are these private players influencing the curriculum? Is the curriculum even a good one to begin with? I’m not familiar w/ T Boon pickens giving money to OSU for athletics, but why is this reprehensible?
“In this situation, private philanthropy is pulling the train”…right over the edge of a cliff.
But, you’re right, private philanthropy is pulling the tarin right over the edge of a cliff…where it glides gracefully until it lands safely on the other side of a pleasant valley, where unknown beauty is found! Thanks again for playign with my metaphors
On Andrew Jones:
Actually, Andrew Jones is conservative!!! That’s what makes this article interesting. He is among a number of conservatives who are angry with the overwhelming liberal tilt in higher education!!! You note that this would shock you, and that this would be outside the norm. What is equally shocking, is how those of us who do not fall into the conservative camp, find this to be so shocking. I accept what you say later about me wanting the liberal and conservative extremes to be taught in schools, but I said that because those extremes are driving our two major parties, and clearly, we understand as much about the other party as we do of the Muslim world. So…we make these assumptions like, “how strange for there to be a young conservative.” At the same time, there’s people from different parts of the country who can’t fathom that everyone doesn’t see the world through a conservative lens. Despite the fact that most people are not political, and don’t follow politics, and that a smart politician would pick up on these facts and appeal to their human side (see George W Bush), a good politician would do this, while also being able to talk both the liberal and conservative language (not being a hyporcite, but recognizing that there are 2 political cultures in America).
I was thinking about the idea of 2-party’s today, and the Coke vs. Pepsi analogy. Basically, there’s a barrier to entry for a 3rd party due to branding. Coke & Pepsi, Democrat & Republican…those brands are difficult to beat. Now…each brand can choose any of a number of product lines, and marketing strategies, to win market share (votes). You’re right, that we often hear the exremes within the parties, and that alone is not good. I actually love your comment about this…that in the marketing wars, controversy wins, and therefore, the moderates lose out.
Take Hillary Clinton’s recent comments that Republicans are running Congress like a plantation. What good did that do? Did her base need her to be radical? No. And certainly this allows the conservatives to put out that fire w/ more gasoline.
Turning to age, you note that just because people have similar ages, doesn’t mean their views are similar. You’re right on, and I may have been a bit naiive to think otherwise. There’s as many 24-year olds who are extremists as there are 50yr. olds garnering all the media and political attention now. Something tells me there is a difference, however, beween the generation that will come to power in 20yrs. and the one in power now, just as in 40-50yrs. another chagne will occur. Not quite sure if the change will be for good or bad, or exactly how. But…it will be the internet generation coming to power, the cell-phone generation, the Saved by The Bell generation. In terms of culture, things will be different…i’ll explore this more in future posts.
Maybe politics won’t change, and we’ll continue to fuck things up there. But…when you look at the way the world is being connected, and I love using Bill Gates as an example because he’s “pulled the train” of humanitarianism like this planet has never seen, you begin to realize that there is potential to achieve ideals that people have hoped for, for years.
As always…I enjoy your comments. You do a good job at challenging my thoughts, and giving me new perspectives. Most importantly, you’re teaching me to examine my words…you were clever in labeling me an idealist (not a term I shy away from because it’s bad, but because i think it connotates a dreamer who is not also grounded in some amount of reality).
Here’s the quote of mine you use:
“But, is there such a thing as a “better world,” both for the years that I’m alive, and for the generations to come. I think there is.”
but the line preceeding that, I wrote:
“But, I wonder, is there such a thing as a “perfect world?” I don’t think there can be, or should be. ”
Are those the words of a head-in-the-clouds idealist?
-dan