Josh Rohrscheib

It’s About Time by Katie Dunne

2006-04-25T09:58:00.000-05:00

A homeless man sits on the sidewalk of a bustling city street, holding a Styrofoam cup. His hair is gray and matted and his clothes are torn and ragged. He shakes the cup halfheartedly, and the few coins inside clink together. The man looks up, scanning the crowd. One after another they pass him: students, doctors, lawyers, businessmen. All too busy to take notice of their fellow citizen. “Not my problem,” they think as they walk by.

Sound familiar? This phrase, “not my problem,” seems to describe the attitude of many Americans toward the less fortunate. It’s so easy to overlook poverty, especially for those whose lives are never touched by it. As a society, we are reluctant to commit time or funds to the disadvantaged simply because it’s not our problem.

So whose problem is it? The single mother who works two full-time jobs to pay the rent and feed her children? The man who was laid off after dedicating thirty years of his life to a company that supposedly valued his work? The disabled woman who has no family and is living off the minimal income of social security?

Capitalism teaches us that every person is responsible for his or her own circumstances. Though this is not the ideal manifestation of capitalism, it has created a selfish mindset on the part of many Americans and because of this state of mind, we’d rather blame the poor for their condition than to examine the fundamental structural problems that cause poverty.

These people are underrepresented because they are not a valuable demographic to politicians. They don’t contribute a significant number of votes, making them easy ignore.

Those in poverty are not poor as a result of their own laziness or incompetence; they are poor because the system has failed them. The ideals of American society no longer apply to all Americans. The values of equality, charity, and opportunity have become subordinate to the agendas of major lobbying groups and politicians. The homeless and impoverished are given very few outlets, and limited means by which they can improve their lives. The government is not fulfilling its responsibility to this group and, as a result, poverty has become a vicious cycle.

All too often I hear the phrase “not my problem” in response to these concerns. It’s about time we reexamine the definition of representative government and give a voice to the voiceless. It’s about time we stop thinking as Democrats and Republicans or as members of a capitalist society and start thinking as human beings. Many of these people that we label as “poor” are lost without the helping hand of their fellow man. It’s about time we make poverty our problem.

Katie Dunne is a freshman double majoring in Political Science and Spanish. Katie is a newly elected Student Senator, the Chair of the ISS Appointments Committee, and one of my favorite people.

The role of the student media by Kiyoshi Martinez

2006-04-21T10:19:00.000-05:00

One question that keeps the media on its toes is: “What is the role of the media?” It’s a question of purpose a reason to reflect on what journalists do. We have to gauge our footprint on the world’s consciousness and determine what part we’ll play in moving society forward – or as some argue, backward – as we do our jobs.

I have yet to work for “professional” media, so I will refrain from commenting on what role I believe it should play. However, having worked in student media for nearly two years now in various roles, I think I’m somewhat able to comment on the role that student journalists have to adhere to.

For those curious, I’ve been an opinions and technology columnist, assistant opinions editor, reporter, page designer, night editor, managing editor and editor in chief during my stint at The Daily Illini. I never claimed to be perfect, and I’m still learning and developing my skills. I don’t profess to be the end all authority on journalism, but I sure as hell have an opinion and have reflected on my time and duties quite a bit.

Student media is unique, particularly at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The Illini Media Company is a non-profit corporation that is completely independent from any control from the University itself. At most, the University can pull its advertising from the IMC, but University advertising is hardly the only entity providing advertising income to the IMC.

With this independence comes a large range of freedom and the student media should use this ability to its advantage. The student paper exists as a voice for the students and a force for advocacy against the University, when warranted.

While the mainstream media is able to take on the state and national government, the student media should play an important role in investigating, hounding and questioning the University’s actions and policies. The University has its advocates and power structures. The students, however, have a 5-day a week publication that reaches 20,000 people in print and even more online.

The odds, in my opinion, are about even.

The student media should listen to the voices of its primary audience: the students. Whether the voice of a lone individual or the chants of the many, the student media should show a favorable pen toward its peers. This idea does not destroy the idea of objectivity, but instead highlights a role of listening and relaying a message. The University has its news bureau, let them speak accolades of their employees.

The student media must also show fairness and be willing to take sides when necessary, whether for or against the popular opinion – including beliefs held by students. Does this mean a more liberal or conservative outlook? No, it means looking at situations ad hoc, and using informed opinion to advocate the correct idea in the proper forum.

But the student media, however, is in the end a business. It must sustain itself through advertising and adapt to changing mediums of information. As much as the current generation uses online technology, the student media lags behind and has yet to grasp a full concept of what being an online provider of information means.

Sadly, being an online focused company does not simply mean reposting stories in print on the Internet. It’s a whole new philosophy of newsgathering and presentation for a different audience. The student media has yet to adapt and grow properly into this realm, because to do so would be destroying what already exists and rebuilding from scratch.

For the student media to continue to be muckrakers of the University and advocates of the campus community, it has to provide new avenues of expression and embrace the full potential of the Internet to fight a war that reaches students beyond the paper they will pick up for the crossword puzzle and “Get Fuzzy.”

The student media will have to have a radical change. It will have to “never sleep” when it comes to news, constantly updating with shorter articles and more write-thrus. It will have to realize the need for more interactive features that readers can engage themselves in. It will have to incorporate brief video clips, hyperlinks to source documents and expansive archive systems that feature accurate search capabilities.

But student media will have to also learn how to fund themselves online too. One day, believe it or not, like it or not, print will die. And with the death of the print, comes the death of advertisements. To remedy this, the online version must already be profitable and generate revenue in other areas beyond just the news content.

To get this revenue stream, classifieds needs to be available online with incredible search options, again, and have the option to be posted for free. Craigslist already is damaging major metropolitan newspapers in their classified sales and it’s only a matter of time before it hurts the smallest papers. Absorbing and preparing for this rude shock now will prevent devastation in the future.

The student media can only achieve its chief role by finding methods to sustain it. If it has to shut down the presses and doesn’t know how to adapt to new markets because it’s unprepared, it will only have itself to blame.

Perhaps the greatest barrier to moving student media in this direction is the fact that the ideology and implementation for this great change must come from the top, not the student level. The students who produce the paper on a daily basis must do just that, produce on a daily basis. Long-term strategy and agenda planning for 1, 5, 10 years ahead is not something that is currently done by student managers. It is always next week, and at most next month.

Next day is perhaps the most current thought in many editors’ minds. It is this rut that must be overcome to prevent the eventual demise of the student press.

Simply put, a vision must be realized and enforced with funding and an iron hand willing to oversee the transformation from start to finish. This can’t be half-assed or wavered on. It either happens, or it doesn’t. It has to be methodical and tedious. It must be rigid enough to be productive, yet adaptable to various necessary changes.

While I have gained much from the student media, I fear for its future after I am long gone. I worry that no one wants to believe in the end of what we have now. I am terrified at the thought that no one is planning for the worst case – and in my mind, inevitable – scenario that will not be addressed until it is far too late.

I have serious concerns that the student media isn’t prepared to lose its classified sales to Craigslist. Or that it doesn’t believe that someone with a brighter idea to market free advertising for apartments on campus won’t undercut more sales for the paper. Or that the paper will not be ready to provide the content students want in terms of news coverage, especially breaking news and sports.

I fear the student media isn’t ready to deliver content to students who will be online almost everywhere when the campuswide wireless networks go online. I am concerned that it’s never going to be ready to deliver content to mobile phones and devices, let alone relevant podcasts or vcasts.

Old formulas are just that, old. Selling special supplements around holidays and seasons will not always work. Why would a student group purchase a $60 advertisement in the paper for one day when they could just as easily spend half as much on a Facebook.com advertisement that lasts for days and even weeks and reaches more people?

Frankly, doing more of the same is a weakness and a crutch. It creates dependency and complacency. The student media has the opportunity to be radical in its business and set experimental standards for the industry as a whole. With so much potential, it makes sense to not be afraid of change and be willing to take the lead so that journalists can continue their mission for the readers they serve.

For the student media to continue its role, and I believe it’s a very important one, it must be self-realized to the dangers that faces its own industry and be pessimistic about its own survival and be more aggressive in unexploited areas.

The only way student media will change is if readers demand it and if the students who work for it advocate it beyond their menial daily tasks. There’s more to the student media than what comes out the next day, it’s just a matter of realizing potential, both negative and positive.

Kiyoshi Martinez is a senior in Journalism and the former Editor in Chief of the Daily Illini. Yoshi is also one of the main contributors on The Next Frontier.

Outstanding column

2006-04-06T02:08:00.000-05:00

My dear friend Brian Pierce just wrote his best column so far on the importance of the university immediately divesting from Darfur. Please take a look.

Resignation Letter

2006-03-16T18:50:00.000-06:00

I've recieved multiple questions about whether or not I intend to resign following the Illini Media Company's decision to fire Acton Gorton. Yesterday afternoon I submitted the resignation letter below to the Managing Editors and Opinions Editor. They have very graciously allowed me to write a farewell column discussing the strategic plan for our campus. Here's the letter:

March 15, 2006

Dear Jason, Shira, and Jenette:

I'm writing to resign my position as a guest columnist for the Daily Illini. I appreciate the opportunity I was given to advance campus issues of great concern to our student body. I have tremendous respect for the journalists who make up the family that is the Daily Illini, and I hope that in the future we will continue to have the lighthearted, engaging working relationship that I've come to enjoy.

While many people whom I respect a great deal disagree with me on this point, I believe the public reasons for Acton's termination are little more than a pretense. Additionally, Mary Cory's letter to the Daily Illini's alumni was an irresponsible act that further entrenched parties on both sides by forcing Acton to seek legal advice; she blew what could have been a powerful education moment for all involved.

There has been much talk that the Daily Illini had the right to run the cartoons, but the responsibility not to do so. This statement lacks an appropriate appreciation for the special role played by college newspapers. College papers have a duty to cover controversial and even offensive ideas so they can be scrutinized by academic communities. In the past the Daily Illini has been widely praised for its commitment to fulfilling this duty, I hope it will not shrink from its proud tradition in the years ahead.

If it could be arranged, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to write one final farewell column the Monday after Spring Break. This affords you two weeks notice to make any necessary changes to the page and it would give me the chance to thank my readers and give parting words to students interested in shaping university policy. If allowed to write this column, I intend to evaluate the most current version of the strategic plan from a student perspective.

Although I feel it is necessary to resign as a guest columnist, in the future I will remain accessible if I can be of any help to any members of the Daily Illini, and it is likely that from time to time I will submit letters to the editor.

I treasure both the friendships I formed with members of the Daily Illini and the experience I gained as a columnist. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your readers.

Sincerely,

Josh Rohrscheib

Saving Illinois

2006-03-13T00:15:00.000-06:00

Our University is approaching a turning-point. Future historians will mark the years ahead as the time the tide began to turn. We still have the power to determine the direction, but the price of that power is a rising burden, a duty of candor to take a hard look at ourselves and address our own failings as a University and a community.

We cannot deny the hard truth that public universities are in very real trouble. State legislatures nationwide are failing to fund higher education. We must become self-reliant. The three ways of filling the gap in funding are raising tuition, increasing out-of-state student enrollment, and substantially bolstering private donations. To have any hope of improving or even maintaining quality, we must do all three.

Illinois has the lowest annual alumni giving rate in the Big Ten, perhaps because for so many, Champaign-Urbana never felt like home.

To save Illinois we must evolve from a giant campus, almost a small metropolis, to a close-knit community. We must make the big feel small. This requires making the impersonal more personal.

Upper level administrators and faculty leaders must set the example for student engagement by getting out from behind their desks and have more face-to-face interaction with students.

One of the most important and often frustrating meetings for new students is their initial consultation with an academic advisor. The need to improve advising is widely recognized, but we are deluding ourselves if we deny the need to immediately hire more advisors. You can not have a personal relationship with an advisor if they are responsible for over 500 students.

University housing must become more responsive to students. Instead of providing a thoughtful and caring environment that allows students to grow and thrive on their own terms, housing staff dictates the terms for growth. An area coordinator once told me "we understand the needs of all our residents." This is a terrifying assertion. When you think you see the whole picture, you stop looking.

Compartmentalization is also harmful. Pitting departments against each other for funding leads to the "that's not my job" mentality. Far too often students seeking help are sent office to office, and once a student is out the door, it's someone else's problem. No one responsible takes responsibility, and everyone else is blamed.

Everyone has their own fiefdom. Innovations of others aren't celebrated, and individual successes aren't shared. Regarding fundraising, academic units are fighting over donors instead of developing strategies to maximize the total contribution to the campus. The result: small public wins dwarfed by immeasurable silent losses.

Other universities create a sense of class identity. Here classes get together only for convocation and graduation, nothing in between. Class events build pride in the campus by bringing students together to celebrate their common experience and their collective potential. This leads to increased annual giving, class gifts and more substantial contributions in the future.

College should be the place for students to shape their values and find their voices. This begins in the classroom, which is why we must take immediate steps to reduce class sizes. How can you be expected to find your voice in an 800 person lecture? It's hard enough to find a seat.

Perhaps the most troubling change on the horizon is the shift in University policymaking from shared governance to a more corporate structure. Nothing could be more dangerous or wrongheaded. Our mission is creating knowledge, not generating profit. Shared governance is the principle that decisions that substantially affect the community should be made by the community. If we are all stake-holders, we all have a greater fidelity to the institution, the community, and ultimately, to one another.

Eliminating inefficiencies should not be confused with cutting services, or taking more power from faculty and students and giving it to administrators. We need students to feel like stake-holders, not mere consumers.

This is a time for bold leadership. There is an inherent tension between collaborative dialogue and decisive action. We must play in both arenas at the same time to dramatically change our campus culture from a faceless metropolis to an engaged community. We should start today.

Published in the Daily Illini on March 13, 2006

Please vote 'yes'

2006-03-06T00:01:00.000-06:00

This Tuesday and Wednesday, you will be asked to vote on three separate referenda questions. These ask if you support two scholarship programs, and if you believe the University should increase its commitment to minority recruitment. I strongly urge you to vote 'yes' in response to all three questions.

The first question involves the creation of the Legacy of Service and Learning Scholarship. This scholarship would be a new and enduring source of both need- and merit-based financial aid created by a refundable fifteen dollar fee. Five dollars goes toward the immediate creation of new scholarships and ten goes into an endowment, and the interest from the endowment will create a permanent source of scholarships.

The Legacy of Service and Learning Scholarship will create a new surge of community service on campus. Every student awarded these scholarship dollars will be required to do fifty hours of community service to have their scholarship renewed. This requirement is based on the principle that by funding the scholarship, the community is making an investment in students, and these students will be expected to give back to the community.

Some have argued that fifty hours is too low of a requirement, but consider the following: 1) Students required to engage in service tend to enjoy it so much they continue giving back to their community beyond the required amount; 2) the program will increase service on campus; and 3) you can make a difference in fifty hours.

If this passes, next year there will be at least an additional $405,000 in scholarship funds available, and this amount will steadily increase. In twenty years, Student Affairs has projected the endowment will approach fifteen million dollars and over a million dollars in scholarships will be awarded each year. These amounts could dramatically increase if we succeed in getting alumni to donate to the program, and this is the kind of program alumni will be eager to
support.

The program allows students to proactively solve problems facing our University instead of futilely asking the state to solve these problems for us.

The second proposal is the Students for Equal Access to Learning fee. This refundable fee is only six dollars. This organization was created to provide need-based financial aid in 1970, and students have continually voted to renew the program.

This is an extraordinary value because the state provides matching funds that double the amount of scholarship funds available. These are state funds we would not have access to without the Students for Equal Access to Learning fee.

The final question concerns minority enrollment. In the last few years, freshman enrollment has increased dramatically, but the number of minority students has remained stagnant or in some cases even decreased. For example, since 1996 the total number of freshmen enrolled has risen from 5,946 to 7,584, while the number of African Americans enrolled decreased from 521 to 499.

This proposal does not advocate the creation of quota systems or any changes in the way the Office of Admissions reviews applicants. Instead, a 'yes' response acknowledges the need for the University to more actively recruit underrepresented students to increase the strength of our applicant pool. Without a renewed commitment to minority recruitment we will lose out on both the intellectual quality of these students and the diversity of background that they could
offer this campus.

Answering 'yes' to these three questions will increase both the level of community service on our campus and the diversity of perspectives in our classrooms. While we can't guarantee success we do have an obligation to guarantee that others have an opportunity to succeed. We can fulfill our promise to future students through the power of pooling our resources.

It is a fundamental principle of our society that the cost of progress is often sacrifice. By making the modest sacrifice of endorsing these three proposals you can contribute to lasting progress on our campus. Please vote 'yes.'

Josh Rohrscheib is a third year law student, a guest columnist and the President of the Illinois Student Senate. He would like to thank Student Affairs, Vice-Provost Ruth Watkins and Financial Aid Director Dan Mann for their help with developing the Legacy of Service and Learning Scholarship proposal. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.

Published in the Daily Illini on March 6, 2006

Cartoongate & the Daily Illini

2006-02-22T16:11:00.000-06:00

Due to the Daily Illini's new, draconian anti-blogger policy, I'm not going to post all of my personal thoughts on how poorly Mary Cory is handling this situation on this blog or go into how unprofessional her letter to the Daily Illini Alumni was, but I do want to open a thread to encourage a discussion on the information about this process that has been made public.

I will say that I have requested that the private taskforce investigating Acton allow their identities to be made public. This will either confirm or refute the allegations that this taskforce is nothing more than a witch hunt looking for some pretense to fire people they simply do not like.

Point-Counterpoint

2006-02-15T13:23:00.000-06:00

Two of my friends and fellow columnists, Billy Joe Mills and Brian Pierce, are featured in a Point-Counterpoint today in the Daily Illini.

Both Billy Joe and Brian have posted the debate on their blogs.

A Crisis of Courage

2006-02-13T00:04:00.000-06:00

John Peter Altgeld, governor of Illinois from 1892 to 1896, once said, "No man's ambition has a right to stand in the way of performing a simple act of justice." Governor Altgeld was true to his words. He sacrificed his political career by pardoning the labor leaders who were wrongly convicted of the Haymarket Bombing.

Politicians today are too self-interested to protect the integrity of our democracy. We have waited far too long for substantive ethical regulations, robust campaign finance reforms, or even redistricting plans that give voters actual options.

All of this is indicative of a political culture lacking courage.

We are the next generation of leaders. Will we be true to the principles of John Peter Altgeld or will we continue to pollute our political process with mediocrity?

Our University is dedicated to the principle of shared governance. Faculty and students take part in the hiring of high ranking administrators and the crafting of University policy. As Student Senate President, I've had the privilege of serving on numerous campus advisory committees. I have noticed that very few students are willing to speak up and criticize the administration.

Some students fear they will "get in trouble" for criticizing the administration, which is unfortunate, untrue, and something the University should fervently deny. Others fear that heated disagreement with administrators will cost them a valuable recommendation letters, so they shamefully sell out their constituency.

For student input to mean anything at all, when we are called upon we must be bold and candid.

Students across campus can not sit back and hope they will be asked to weigh in. The overwhelming majority of faculty members and administrators enjoy students and value their opinions. In some cases students need to stand up to hostile and aggressive individuals who seek to silence student input.

Currently, one student-loathing zealot sits with me on the Senate Committee on Student Discipline. He recently said he sees no value in having students serve on our committee. This is a committee that crafts discipline procedures and hears student appeals prior to their dismissal. We must be vigilant in asserting the importance of having our voices heard.

Some administrators also try to insulate themselves from dissent. Former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Patricia Askew was so afraid of criticism that she staffed various advisory committees with Turner Fellows, students employed by her office. It doesn't take an independent advisory committee to tell this is a clear conflict of interest.

We have made some progress in just the last year. Chancellor Herman has created a panel of students he is meeting with on a monthly basis. Our next Provost told me she intended to actively reach out to students by meeting regularly with groups of students. I believe the interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs has ended the policy of including student employees on his advisory committees.

Today I am proud to be writing for the Daily Illini because of the bold decision made by editor in chief Acton Gorton last week to run cartoons few other papers in the nation would run. College newspapers have a great obligation to present extreme perspectives so they can be rigorously scrutinized in academic communities.

Some have suggested that Mr. Gorton should lose his job. If he is fired, this will be my last column. This is a matter of principle, and his actions do not warrant his termination. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Gorton's decision, it is hard to deny that his actions took courage.

As you walk through the Quad today, pause for just a moment in front of Altgeld Hall. Measure your own will by reflecting on Governor Altgeld's legacy. Remember the words of Justice Earl Warren, "Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile I caught hell for." Ask yourself, what are you willing to catch hell for?

Published in the Daily Illini on February 13, 2006.

Point-Counterpoint: The Nature of Rights

2006-02-08T13:41:00.000-06:00

Point: The Moral Aristocracy
By Billy Joe Mills

We are a generation that believes in our rights - our right to underage drinking, abortion, smoking pot, wealth, higher education and others.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, individual states voted on whether abortion should be legal; each state could decide what policy best suited its residents. The issue of abortion was democratically decided. In Roe, the Court made abortion a Constitutional right; it elevated the invented right of privacy to the same status as the speech in this column.

By doing so, it usurped the right of the people to vote on issues not patently settled by the Constitution. They concluded that the wisdom of nine robed sages was superior to the collective wisdom of millions of American voters. The justices, after all, have law degrees. (It is not a coincidence that Rohrscheib will soon graduate from law school).

History has an analogy to Roe: the Dred Scott case created the right of whites to own blacks as property, striking down the Missouri Compromise.

This does not mean the Court should never overrule the will of the majority and force social progress. Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided because it realized what had been settled by the Civil War and the 14th Amendment: the world's leader of democracy cannot be legitimate unless the races are equal under the law.

Substantive due process and the magical discovery of rights will allow conservatives to summon their own set of rights. This will haunt liberal rightists. In 2000, conservatives invented the right to determine the outcome of the Bush v. Gore election. In Kansas, conservatives are trying to create the right to have their religion taught in schools, under the guise of Intelligent Design.

Concocted rights allow the possibility of conflicting rights. Inevitably, an invented liberal right will collide with an invented conservative right. For instance, the religious right wishes to dream up the right to life of the unborn, which will crash into the right to privacy of a pregnant woman.

Both are arbitrary, whimsical and egotistical opinions. They assume their morals to be universally optimal for all states and all Americans. Both sides cannot be correct, thus we must leave constitutionally unsettled issues to the voters.

The Constitution is not inert. It was not perfectly crafted to suit an eternity of posterity, as Scalia wants us to believe. But it is also not an open door for liberals or conservatives to pull down vague Platonic rights from the clouds to educate us masses on what our morals ought to be, as Rohrscheib wants us to believe.

The Court should judge based on the totality of social scientific facts, minimizing the arbitrariness of the justices' opinions (citing Professor Carmen).

Our best rights are simple or procedural: freedom of speech, due process, trial by jury and a few others. But, when rights are conjured up they become no more persuasive or permanent than legislation. Rights inventors do not believe in the democratic process, they distrust the morals and intelligence of us, the voters.

They sit as philosopher-kings. They are the moral aristocracy.

Counterpoint: In defense of liberty
By Josh Rohrscheib

My friendship with Billy Joe Mills began as a continuation of arguments from Professor Ira Carmen's Constitutional Law class. Today we are presenting two views on the nature of rights and we both owe Professor Carmen a great debt for challenging us to look for our own answers to these questions.

The Constitution is a living document that responds to the dominant trends in society. Consequently, the interpretation of rights also evolves over time.

Modern right-wing political rhetoric castigates those judges with the audacity to recognize these changes in society by accusing them of "legislating from the bench" and being "activist judges," and my favorite, that these judges are "making up rights."

These rights are not "made up" or "pulled out of thin air." They simply exist as they have for hundreds of years. John Locke called these natural rights. John Adams wrote, "you have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."

Even as they declared our independence, the founders did so citing certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

During the debates over the Bill of Rights, the Federalists feared listing certain rights could eventually deny by omission the broad range of liberty retained by the people. In response to this fear, Madison crafted the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment was a key source in protecting the right of privacy. Forty years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court overturned a statewide ban on selling contraceptives because it violated the privacy right of married couples. While some would say the Warren Court was "making up" the right to privacy, by any modern standard this sort of government regulation is far too invasive.

It is irrational to insist that merely because the word privacy does not appear in the constitution, there is no Constitutional right to privacy. Privacy interests are also protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. According to Justice Brandeis, "privacy is the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized man."

It is curious that conservatives, who in one breath claim to advocate small government, in the next contend that protections from tyrannical government intrusion do not exist unless those protections are specifically expressed word for word in the Constitution.

These are often the same conservatives who believe the government power should be just narrow enough to fit through the bedroom door.

For the moment I find comfort in a legal truism I heard from one of my other favorite professors, "the Constitution means whatever the hell five Justices on the Supreme Court say it means at any given time." Champions of personal liberty can only hope the new Roberts Court will continue to interpret the constitution respecting our continued evolution as a society.

Published in the Daily Illini on February 8, 2006

A Call For Reform

2006-01-30T00:01:00.000-06:00

This afternoon members of the Student Senate will be recommending several reforms to the current system of student discipline. Several aspects of the discipline process raise serious questions about the fairness of these proceedings.

One curiosity about the culture of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR) is they maintain that student discipline is not an adversarial process. Although the university has an interest in counseling students and educating students through the disciplinary proceedings, the interests of an accused student are fundamentally different from those of the university.

An accused student wants to avoid punishment, or receive the least severe possible punishment, and in extreme situations the student may just want to avoid being kicked out of school. The university is most concerned with protecting and preserving the campus community as a community of scholars. To some extent implicit in this aim is an interest in helping the accused student, but that interest is certainly secondary to their broader mission.

By repeatedly denying that student discipline is by its very nature an adversarial relationship, those administering the process are obscuring the truth. The discipline officers may repeatedly say they are acting primarily as a “counselor” or as an “educator,” but they are also keeping a record of everything the student tells to either sentence the student or to issue a report to a committee that will decide the student’s fate. Denying the adversarial nature of the process will naturally lead students to be more candid, but it is outright deception that works against the interests of the student.

Several aspects of the actual procedures call into serious question whether or not our discipline procedures are fair. Under the current discipline procedures an accused student does not have a right to question adverse witnesses. This is every bit as fundamental to due process as the right to present a favorable witness. Denying question of adverse witnesses might make the process appear less adversarial, but it does so at the expense of making the process less fair.

In some cases, students were presented with the evidence against them less than fifteen minutes before their hearing. The administration owes students a reasonable amount of time to prepare a defense. We are asking the administration to guarantee accused students receive the full case against them, including all evidence, at least five business days prior to their hearing.

One of the most troubling aspects of the discipline system is how few cases even make it to a hearing. The staggering majority of cases are handled through a process that is very similar to a plea bargain. Students are offered a particular sanction they are told is the “least severe probable punishment.” If they waive their right to the hearing, then the penalty will not get worse, but if they demand a hearing the penalty may be even likely to get worse. The administrator who runs the OCSR, the ironically named Dick Justice, denies this is like a plea bargain. Once more, denying its nature does not change its nature.

This waiver process is and is not like a plea bargain. It is like a plea bargain because students are threatened with the possibility of a more severe punishment if they do not waive their due process rights. It is not like a plea bargain because with plea bargains a prosecutor offers a sentence and a judge has oversight to make sure that sentence is fair and reasonable, in the student discipline context there is no case-specific independent oversight of the discipline officer officer. Here the judge is the prosecutor.

Fundamentally, student discipline is intended to educate students, not just punish them. This mission does not justify denying the adversarial nature of the process. Even if the administration has the best of intentions, students must be given robust protections to ensure they are treated fairly. Students should be afforded the best process the university can reasonably afford.

Published in the Daily Illini on January 30, 2006

*for more information on student discipline reform and other student rights issues, click here

Policing the Police

2006-01-23T02:01:00.000-06:00

Champaign-Urbana is a community with three police forces, one for each city and one for our campus. A series of local controversies including suicides in jail, allegations of racial profiling, and the arrest of local activists (who were investigating the police) have led many local groups to call for the creation of citizen police review boards.

A citizen police review board would be an impartial body of citizens that are independent from the police, who perform oversight functions, investigate complaints against police officers, and suggest policy reform. Currently, all complaints against the Champaign and Urbana police are handled within the department.

A Student Senate report on racial profiling recommends police review boards for all three local police departments. There is a common perception that police are inclined to protect one another. Victims of profiling and police discrimination are more likely to feel they are treated fairly if their complaints are reviewed by a citizen review board. Citizen review boards give the community more confidence that complaints will be handled impartially.

Citizen review boards also offer advantages for the police. Often these boards can shield police from civil liability. Additionally, they impartially dispense with frivolous complaints while avoiding any accusations police are covering up misconduct to “protect their own.” Perhaps most impotantly, citizen boards increase the public trust in local police.

Unfortunately, there is little momentum towards creating a board for the Champaign police. However, Urbana is making real progress. In September, the Urbana City Council unanimously approved a task force to study creating a police review board. One of the most effective students I’ve ever met, Jen Walling, is on the task force. Jen told me that later this semester the taskforce will present a plan to the city counsel on how to implement a review board. For more information on these efforts visit: www.prairienet.org/cprb/.

The Student Senate is advocating for the creation of a University Police Complaint and Policy Review Board to ensure fairness in disputes between our students and the University Police. This board would give students, faculty and staff a voice in University Policing.

Creating citizen police review boards is only part of the solution. The Student Senate and the student ACLU are launching the “Know Your Rights” campaign to protect students from police abuse. Student Affairs and Housing in particular have been extremely supportive of these efforts so far. Housing is distributing Know Your Rights door hangers to every room in the residence halls with information on what to do if the police want to search the room.

The campaign is also using bar cards with simple rules for students who encounter police while out drinking to keep a bad situation from getting much worse. Both the card and door hanger, along with other student rights information can be found at www.iss.uiuc.edu/rights along with other resources on students rights. Many of these resoruces are from Student Legal Services, which offers free legal advice to all students. The lawyers at student Legal Services are dedicated advocates for students and you should keep them in mind if you are ever in trobule with the police or with the university.

Even if all three police forces eventaully have police review boards, the most effective check on police abuse is a well informed citizenry. Know your rights. Protect yourself. And do your part to police the police.

UPDATE ON TEXTBOOK PRICES

Since Friday’s column there’ve been two major breakthroughs for students. First, State Represenatative Naomi Jakobsson is now sponsoring HB 4867, the Textbook Pricing and Access Act. Second, I spoke with Professor Paul Kelter, the Director of General Chemistry. Beginning next fall, he promised to have bookstores also offer unbundled versions of Dr. Zumdahl’s chemistry text. Dr. Kelter is also considering working with the Student Senate to create a pilot program for textbook rental to save students more on textbooks.

Published in the Daily Illini on January 23, 2006.

Textbook Example of Price Gouging

2006-01-21T00:13:00.000-06:00

According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office study, textbook prices have increased 186 percent in the last 20 years. Many authors are constantly pumping out new editions with few substantive changes. Meanwhile, publishers are bundling textbooks with supplements that often go unused. Being forced to buy bundled books is like ordering a coffee black and being told instead you're going to have a caramel macchiato with extra whipped cream and sprinkles. And by the way, instead of 60 cents it'll be $4.50.

At Illinois we are blessed with the opportunity to learn from some of the finest minds in the world. It isn’t surprising that we also have our share of textbook authors. Two authors in particular, Dr. Fred Gottheil and Dr. Steven Zumdahl, are widely criticized by students over the pricing of their textbooks.

Professor Fred Gottheil has won more teaching awards than any other professor on campus. However, he comes out with new editions of his economic textbooks every three years. I called Gottheil to ask him about the difference between his editions and he told me that he updates the data and rewrites special sections he calls “Perspectives.” I compared his third and fourth edition on macroeconomics and immediately noticed that all of the chapters began on the same pages in both volumes, almost all of the text remained the same and only a modest amount of data was updated. As for the “Perspectives,” only 13 of 65 were replaced.

The current edition of Gottheil’s textbook for microeconomics is over $90, and is bundled with student specific access codes, requiring students to purchase new books every year that they cannot sell back.

Gottheil is currently working on a fifth edition of his book to add information on globalization. Professor, if you’re reading this, please wait to produce a new edition until it is educationally necessary and consider saving your students some money by putting the new material online.

Chemistry Professor Steven Zumdahl makes Gottheil look like a champion of consumer rights. His “new” hardback chemistry text is labeled Spring 2006 and according to one sales associate, it includes a course guide and homework assignments that are torn out of the text. This text is still the sixth edition, the same as last year. He didn’t even bother updating it. The insidious little trick of including material that can only be used once instead of distributing those items in class or making them available online makes used books obsolete.

As if these practices weren’t predatory enough, Zumdahl is also bundling both a study guide and a solutions guide with the text. The chemistry students I’ve talked to have told me these supplements aren’t useful enough to justify buying them separately. You can’t buy just the book, and the bundle costs an outrageous $144.

Many of our faculty members are doing their part to help keep costs down for students. For example, Geoffrey Love required an older edition of the B.A. 310 text to save his 600 students money. When the publishing company ran out of older editions, he negotiated to lower prices on new editions. Numerous professors are making the substantial effort to prepare course packets instead of requiring numerous texts. If you have an instructor who is making an effort to keep costs down, please be sure to tell them you appreciate it.

Recently, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn proposed the “Fair Textbook Pricing and Access Act.” This would mandate the unbundling of textbooks, create a sales tax exemption and require publishers to provide libraries with free copies of textbooks. The Illinois Student Senate will be advocating in support of Quinn’s reform package. E-mail us at iss@uiuc.edu if you would like to lend a hand.

Until substantive reforms are passed, ask your professors if an older edition will suffice. Be sure to take advantage of Web sites like illinibookexchange.com or campusi.com. For now, these Web-sites are your only protection from finanicial exploitation at the bookstore register.

Published in the Daily Illini on January 20th, 2006.

Response to George Will

2006-01-20T22:41:00.000-06:00

George Will, in his Jan. 5 column, rhetorically asks why the disapproval of a nickname should doom it. Will asks the wrong question. We must ask if it makes sense for a world-class public university use a nickname that so many find offensive. When a mascot’s purpose is suppose to be uniting a campus, does it make sense to retain a mascot so divisive that over 30% of the student body opposes it.

Regardless of your stance on the Chief, no one can deny that the controversy is a huge waste. The university has funded countless diversity studies, which almost all recommend retiring the Chief, and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on wholly unnecessary litigation. We cannot afford to continue wasting time and money on a controversy that will continue to divide and disrupt us.

Mr. Will also overlooks the fact that a staggering majority of Native American students currently enrolled at the University of Illinois oppose the Chief. Sadly, those who voice their criticism are often taunted, threatened, and told, "if you don't like it, go somewhere else." The Board of Trustees has the power to end this sort of treatment if they can summon the political courage to do so.

The ultimate question facing the Board of Trustees must be what course of action is best for the University of Illinois. The time has come for the Board to boldly answer that question, even if the answer is unpopular.

Published in the News Gazettee January 20, 2006