For many students, the end of fall semester is a time of cramming for finals, walking across campus wrapped up in ten pounds of winter clothing and daydreaming of a few weeks respite from homework, tests and living in the dorms.
After deciphering my own final exam schedule I can't help but wonder how many students, commuters and dorm residents alike, will be stressed about how they will manage to take the final exam for their Monday and Wednesday (MW) class that is scheduled for Friday, Dec. 14.
The website, http://www.emich.edu/registrar/examsched.htm, where the final exam schedule is located, states that the requirement for a final exam falls under departmental policy. The site also states, in a voice better suited to a totalitarian grade school, that, "The schedule below shall be followed. If a final examination is not given, the scheduled exam period shall be used for other class activity."
As one of my own professors said, there will be hell to pay if the professor and a majority of students in a particular class are not present during the scheduled time for that class final. University employees will check classrooms to ensure that the professor and students are present during the specified exam time period.
Doesn't that sound like they're just trying to keep us busy? Keep in mind that 24-hour quiet time will be in effect in the dorms leading up to and during finals, and anyone who absolutely must be disruptive can go off-campus, hang out in the Eastern Eateries or the student center, where Fridays often feature music of some sort, whether live or supplied by a DJ.
Don't get me wrong -- I understand that scheduling classes so that they don't overlap is difficult. I simply have a problem with it when half of the Monday, Wednesday and Friday classes, which also includes MW classes, are on Friday. Many students explicitly choose MW classes so they can work Fridays, go home for a full two days and decompress, or even be able to have a doctor's appointment in their out-of-state hometown.
Finals week this semester does span a weekend -- Thursday, Dec. 13 to Tuesday, Dec. 18. It is likely difficult to separate MW classes from MWF classes when making the schedule, but this does not excuse the fact that a number of students who live off campus were completely disregarded.
One option for students is to ask the professor for an alternate time to take the final. In the event the professor doesn't flat out refuse, this puts professors in a catch-22, especially for upper level classes where a good number of the students may not only have jobs but also commute, many from an hour or more away.
While professors want to help their students get good grades in the class, they may get in trouble themselves if a majority of the class does not show for the final exam scheduled time and someone does check.
I am sure there are people reading this who think that those students with some sort of scheduling conflict ought to just suck it up, clear their schedule and get to class -- but it's not always that easy. Employers are not always understanding of the time constraints inherent of going to college, and even if the employer does understand, many businesses set their vacation days in stone months in advance and offer a small, set number of sick days before an employee is fired as per the company's own regulations. There are probably others reading this who think those students who can't get out of whatever obligations they may have ought to just suck it up and take a zero for the test grade, and I admit -- that is an option. However, the point is that students should not be put in a position where they have to choose between being paid and taking their final exams.
It is Eastern Michigan University's job to make sure those students are not put in that position, not the other way around.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Anthem Insufficient (published 11/14/2007)
The article, "Our Nation's Favorite Song" by Geoffrey Nunberg, dissects the three foremost songs in the running for the title of national anthem. He cites the United States Congress of World War I, a Madison, Wisconsin school board and an unspecified number of people who support the opinion that "The Star Spangled Banner" is too militaristic.
The title of "God Bless America" is much too controversial, not to mention Nunberg's assertion that many Americans would prefer "their official anthem to be a bit mustier and more decorously phrased."
Nunberg's objections to "America the Beautiful" include the "overblown language," the song's focus on the American landscape circa the late 19th century and that "no other country tells its story as the history of a single regime," a fact Nunberg believes "ought to figure prominently in whatever anthem we sing."
Nunberg is at least partly correct: "The Star Spangled Banner," "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America" are excellent songs in their own right, but none of them -- "The Star Spangled Banner" included -- reflect accurately enough what it means to be an American today. To be worthy of the title of the national anthem the song should reflect life in America today rather than represent this country's history.
"The Star Spangled Banner" is, when taken in the context of history, not overly militaristic as it was written to reflect a military battle. With the religious diversity in the U.S., making "God Bless America" the national anthem would be a slap in the face to those Americans who do not believe in a higher power referred to specifically as "God."
"America the Beautiful" is an incredible song, but like "God Bless America" the inclusion of God in the lyrics may turn out to be a point of contention. The exclusion of any mention of democracy or the things that make the U.S. an incredible country to be a part of plays a big part in why the song is not appropriate as a national anthem.
To be fair, a song that is absolutely perfect probably does not exist, and it may very well be impossible for any one person to compose a song that can capture all the nuances of U.S. culture and what it means to be an American. This is especially because the face of America is always in flux, and a four-minute song may be the most difficult medium in which to express that.
Even more important than whether or not an appropriate song exists or not is how the song will come into being -- who will write the lyrics? Will the song even have lyrics? What will the music be?
It's more about what is included and excluded in the song. There is much to be proud about America: the diverse population, scientific and technological advances, outstanding literary and cinematic achievements such as "The Catcher in the Rye" and "The Princess Bride," the Constitution and the fact that it has grown and changed along with the changes in American society and the world and much more.
At the same time, however, there is even more about America to be ashamed of: corruption in everything from professional sports to Fortune 500 companies and the government, homophobia, racism, ageism, religious intolerance, sexism and poverty.
As far as I am concerned, anyone and everyone from George W. Bush to Ellen Degeneres can have their say as to what they think the national anthem should be or who should write it.
What truly bothers me is that this is even up for debate when somewhere in the country a woman's son is in the hospital because someone didn't like his skin color, and a man is watching his partner of 24 years die because the company he works for doesn't provide its employees with domestic partner benefits.
I cannot imagine what that must be like, but I do know that it must be incredibly, unbelievably difficult for either of those two people to care if the national anthem is changed or not. When those issues -- not only health care and racism, but the myriad of other issues mentioned above -- are actively being addressed and not being shoved under the rug is when the national anthem should be changed, if ever.
The title of "God Bless America" is much too controversial, not to mention Nunberg's assertion that many Americans would prefer "their official anthem to be a bit mustier and more decorously phrased."
Nunberg's objections to "America the Beautiful" include the "overblown language," the song's focus on the American landscape circa the late 19th century and that "no other country tells its story as the history of a single regime," a fact Nunberg believes "ought to figure prominently in whatever anthem we sing."
Nunberg is at least partly correct: "The Star Spangled Banner," "America the Beautiful" and "God Bless America" are excellent songs in their own right, but none of them -- "The Star Spangled Banner" included -- reflect accurately enough what it means to be an American today. To be worthy of the title of the national anthem the song should reflect life in America today rather than represent this country's history.
"The Star Spangled Banner" is, when taken in the context of history, not overly militaristic as it was written to reflect a military battle. With the religious diversity in the U.S., making "God Bless America" the national anthem would be a slap in the face to those Americans who do not believe in a higher power referred to specifically as "God."
"America the Beautiful" is an incredible song, but like "God Bless America" the inclusion of God in the lyrics may turn out to be a point of contention. The exclusion of any mention of democracy or the things that make the U.S. an incredible country to be a part of plays a big part in why the song is not appropriate as a national anthem.
To be fair, a song that is absolutely perfect probably does not exist, and it may very well be impossible for any one person to compose a song that can capture all the nuances of U.S. culture and what it means to be an American. This is especially because the face of America is always in flux, and a four-minute song may be the most difficult medium in which to express that.
Even more important than whether or not an appropriate song exists or not is how the song will come into being -- who will write the lyrics? Will the song even have lyrics? What will the music be?
It's more about what is included and excluded in the song. There is much to be proud about America: the diverse population, scientific and technological advances, outstanding literary and cinematic achievements such as "The Catcher in the Rye" and "The Princess Bride," the Constitution and the fact that it has grown and changed along with the changes in American society and the world and much more.
At the same time, however, there is even more about America to be ashamed of: corruption in everything from professional sports to Fortune 500 companies and the government, homophobia, racism, ageism, religious intolerance, sexism and poverty.
As far as I am concerned, anyone and everyone from George W. Bush to Ellen Degeneres can have their say as to what they think the national anthem should be or who should write it.
What truly bothers me is that this is even up for debate when somewhere in the country a woman's son is in the hospital because someone didn't like his skin color, and a man is watching his partner of 24 years die because the company he works for doesn't provide its employees with domestic partner benefits.
I cannot imagine what that must be like, but I do know that it must be incredibly, unbelievably difficult for either of those two people to care if the national anthem is changed or not. When those issues -- not only health care and racism, but the myriad of other issues mentioned above -- are actively being addressed and not being shoved under the rug is when the national anthem should be changed, if ever.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
NY school's bag ban intrusive, degrading (published 10/22/07)
Tri-Valley Central School in Grahamsville, N.Y. recently instituted a rule banning all bags from classes—except for girls on their periods.
Nancy George, Tri-Valley superintendent, cited two reasons for the new rule: student health, and security concerns regarding students bringing concealed weapons to school.
The concern over student health stems from the back problems both teenagers and adults suffer from as a result of carrying bags that are too heavy. George also noted that backpacks present a risk of tripping.
The real problem—as Tri-Valley students have been saying loud and clear with protests in which girls wore tampons on their clothes and boys stuck maxi pads to their shirts to show support—arises in how the rule is being enforced.
As good as the intentions behind the rule may be, the entire situation not only reeks of poor planning, communication, and implementation, but of insensitivity and totalitarian ideals.
Samantha Martin, 14, was pulled from class for having a purse with her on Sept. 19, when a school sweep was performed. Mike Bunce, the security guard that pulled her from class, asked her what the Times Herald-Record christened "the question:" "Do you have your period?"
In light of the taboo of strange men asking underage girls anything regarding their sex organs, how many parents would not tell their daughters to get away from a man asking that question as quickly as possible?
This is a culture that consistently strives to silence women's complaints about their menstrual cycles—for example, Kotex advertising a quieter wrapper, or media showing women discussing the topic with other women and men always skirting the issue.
A middle-aged man asking a 14-year-old girl if she has her period because she is carrying a purse is on par with a female teacher asking a teenage boy if he is falling asleep in class because had to change his sheets the night before after having a wet dream.
Indeed, after Bunce asked her "the question," Martin refused to answer, instead thinking, "Oh, my God. Get away from me," before returning to class.
George stated, "We're certainly not going to make light of this. It's a very sensitive issue, but it needs to be handled."
She is correct, it is a sensitive issue, but the problem arises in that George is being completely reactionary. No thought was given as to who should approach girls carrying bags, how to phrase "the question," or even the fact that wanting to carry extra maxi pads or tampons is normal. It will always be a sensitive issue, no matter the ages of the people involved, or whether "the question" is voiced in a school hallway or not.
Grown men asking that question is far from being the only flaw in the rule's implementation. The students did not find out that only girls on their period can carry purses from any member of the administration; instead, it started as a rumor the week before the bag check.
Hannah Lindquist, another 14-year-old, approached the school's principal, Robert Worden, after hearing someone might have been suspended for protesting. Lindquist, who participated in the protest, was wearing "her protest necklace, an OB tampon box on a piece of yarn," which Worden confiscated before discussing the code of conduct and backpack rule and then "told her she was now 'part of the problem.'"
Not only was Worden's approach disrespectful and minimized her concerns, it was also controlling and very likely to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy in which Lindquist will indeed become "part of the problem."
Students with health issues are also greatly affected, as insulin kits—which are often similar to a men's shaving kit—asthma inhalers, allergy medications, and even retainers, are difficult to keep track of without a bag of some kind. Another concern is the rule many schools still utilize that requires any medications to be kept in a nurse's office—although it is not clear if Tri-Valley is such a school. In many of these cases, a rule such as that can mean the difference between seconds and minutes when minutes can be fatal.
The bag ban could have worked beautifully. Instead, students are protesting and their parents are furious, as they should be. The only people involved in the situation that deserve any positive recognition are the students who spoke out and their parents for supporting them.
Nancy George, Tri-Valley superintendent, cited two reasons for the new rule: student health, and security concerns regarding students bringing concealed weapons to school.
The concern over student health stems from the back problems both teenagers and adults suffer from as a result of carrying bags that are too heavy. George also noted that backpacks present a risk of tripping.
The real problem—as Tri-Valley students have been saying loud and clear with protests in which girls wore tampons on their clothes and boys stuck maxi pads to their shirts to show support—arises in how the rule is being enforced.
As good as the intentions behind the rule may be, the entire situation not only reeks of poor planning, communication, and implementation, but of insensitivity and totalitarian ideals.
Samantha Martin, 14, was pulled from class for having a purse with her on Sept. 19, when a school sweep was performed. Mike Bunce, the security guard that pulled her from class, asked her what the Times Herald-Record christened "the question:" "Do you have your period?"
In light of the taboo of strange men asking underage girls anything regarding their sex organs, how many parents would not tell their daughters to get away from a man asking that question as quickly as possible?
This is a culture that consistently strives to silence women's complaints about their menstrual cycles—for example, Kotex advertising a quieter wrapper, or media showing women discussing the topic with other women and men always skirting the issue.
A middle-aged man asking a 14-year-old girl if she has her period because she is carrying a purse is on par with a female teacher asking a teenage boy if he is falling asleep in class because had to change his sheets the night before after having a wet dream.
Indeed, after Bunce asked her "the question," Martin refused to answer, instead thinking, "Oh, my God. Get away from me," before returning to class.
George stated, "We're certainly not going to make light of this. It's a very sensitive issue, but it needs to be handled."
She is correct, it is a sensitive issue, but the problem arises in that George is being completely reactionary. No thought was given as to who should approach girls carrying bags, how to phrase "the question," or even the fact that wanting to carry extra maxi pads or tampons is normal. It will always be a sensitive issue, no matter the ages of the people involved, or whether "the question" is voiced in a school hallway or not.
Grown men asking that question is far from being the only flaw in the rule's implementation. The students did not find out that only girls on their period can carry purses from any member of the administration; instead, it started as a rumor the week before the bag check.
Hannah Lindquist, another 14-year-old, approached the school's principal, Robert Worden, after hearing someone might have been suspended for protesting. Lindquist, who participated in the protest, was wearing "her protest necklace, an OB tampon box on a piece of yarn," which Worden confiscated before discussing the code of conduct and backpack rule and then "told her she was now 'part of the problem.'"
Not only was Worden's approach disrespectful and minimized her concerns, it was also controlling and very likely to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy in which Lindquist will indeed become "part of the problem."
Students with health issues are also greatly affected, as insulin kits—which are often similar to a men's shaving kit—asthma inhalers, allergy medications, and even retainers, are difficult to keep track of without a bag of some kind. Another concern is the rule many schools still utilize that requires any medications to be kept in a nurse's office—although it is not clear if Tri-Valley is such a school. In many of these cases, a rule such as that can mean the difference between seconds and minutes when minutes can be fatal.
The bag ban could have worked beautifully. Instead, students are protesting and their parents are furious, as they should be. The only people involved in the situation that deserve any positive recognition are the students who spoke out and their parents for supporting them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)