Absence Makes the Heart Grow Angry
In recent days I’ve spent a good deal of time working on the school of law newspaper, and as such, my thoughts have turned to questions of civic involvement and the exercise of free speech. As such, I wrote the following column for the school paper and felt to include it here, although it may seem slightly inconsistent with my previous posts. I do this in hopes of sparking debate and discussion, and with luck, a little bit of improvement.
In temporarily discarding my normal Bush bashing, I choose instead to comment on an issue which stirs my passions: civic involvement. More specifically, letters to the editor, and a general lack of them. This is the third issue of the paper, and The Advocate’s editorial staff has yet to receive a single letter. I am tired of wandering the halls of Bannan and hearing a hundred good ideas, or worthy complaints, go unnoted by those in a position to make change. Particularly when an effective means of communication is readily available, and sadly underutilized. Journalistic freedom and participation may seem like mixed blessings, depending on the administration, but their purposes are legion. They prevent those in power from abusing that power. They provide a prod to progress and overcome administrative lethargy. They provide an opportunity to foster change and growth. Finally, they extend the debate beyond the talking heads of CNN and Fox News to the grassroots of Everytown, America. Unfortunately this effectiveness is limited by community members' desire to engage their media.
General apathy on the part of the student body permits those in positions of influence or power to intimidate right minded individuals from expressing their ideas. I know a 1L who took issue with a certain column in the last issue of The Advocate. Although the column was passed off as an opinion piece, she felt the facts cited misrepresented the situation and cast her in a bad light. I prompted her to write a letter to the editor to protest, and she even wrote one, but upon reconsideration she felt submission of that letter would expose her to possible retaliation in future columns. If students who felt strongly about an issue used the forum available in The Advocate to voice their opinions, my friend may not have felt so hesitant to raise her concerns.
Furthermore, students' silence contributes to the stagnation of progress and the continuation of mediocrity. Since the last issue of The Advocate hit Bannan, several individuals have approached me to discuss its contents. Some have suggested the purpose of The Advocate, and every student organization, should be to improve the reputation of the School of Law. Others have wondered if some aspect of the paper bordered on libelous behavior. Still others had more than a few choice words to say about opinions published in its pages. I believe many of these are worthwhile and fair criticisms, but unless they are made through students' exercise of their civic rights, they remain ephemeral suggestions lost to those with editorial power. If one wants to alter policy, one must speak up.
The Advocate offers an open and accessible venue for discussion of administration policy and ideas for improvement. When someone suggested to me that The Advocate take a long view of its relationship to the SBA and SCU School of Law, I took their point as a good one. My response, though, is this: the most effective way for a student organization like The Advocate to improve the reputation of this school is to provide a fair and open forum to praise and to criticize, as the case may warrant, School of Law policy and practice. If someone wants to change the purpose of The Advocate, let them write a letter to the editor. If someone wants to suggest a way to improve the School of Law rankings, write a letter to the editor. Dean Polden reads the paper, he’ll see the suggestion. If someone enjoyed a panel, or speaker, or other resource available on campus, write a letter to the editor. The person responsible will read it and feel ten times better. Use The Advocate for its purpose, an opportunity to inform and to report important news to the students here at Santa Clara University.
It is important to understand, though, that the nature of The Advocate imposes certain limitations. Because The Advocate is a monthly publication, it is difficult to fill its pages with late breaking news, or up to the minute reports about fascinating legal developments. What has always worked best, and will continue to work best, is a more timeless approach. Instead of trying to beat daily papers, newscasts, and web media, The Advocate is best suited for op/ed pieces and feature articles that highlight the achievements of students and faculty here at SCU. Limitations in reporting should not discourage anyone from participating in their community.
A vital and lively debate should not be limited to election time. The other day I surveyed past issues of The Advocate and discovered that published letters to the editor peaked during the 2004 presidential elections. As students of the law it seems our consideration of involvement should include more than national issues. Not every graduate of SCU School of Law will find themselves ensconced in the marbled halls of Washington, D.C., lobbying to affect national policy. Many, if not most, of us will spend our days interacting with clients, firms, or corporations. We will live our lives surrounded by friends and family, flesh and blood people, if you will. In the midst of our depersonalization of the human experience, shouldn’t we wonder how to improve our state, city, neighborhoods, and families? That is the purpose of a publication like The Advocate, to provide a place to worry and to wonder about all levels of society.
If The Advocate is not immediate enough, or high tech enough, I am posting this column to my blog and I welcome feedback and comments there. I would like to see a community of people involved and, to whatever extent possible, I intend to use my access to the media to encourage that involvement. You can submit letters to the editor at editor@theadvocate.us. This column and other musings are also located at thesiegeperilous.blogspot.com. Please shed the apathy and get involved.
In temporarily discarding my normal Bush bashing, I choose instead to comment on an issue which stirs my passions: civic involvement. More specifically, letters to the editor, and a general lack of them. This is the third issue of the paper, and The Advocate’s editorial staff has yet to receive a single letter. I am tired of wandering the halls of Bannan and hearing a hundred good ideas, or worthy complaints, go unnoted by those in a position to make change. Particularly when an effective means of communication is readily available, and sadly underutilized. Journalistic freedom and participation may seem like mixed blessings, depending on the administration, but their purposes are legion. They prevent those in power from abusing that power. They provide a prod to progress and overcome administrative lethargy. They provide an opportunity to foster change and growth. Finally, they extend the debate beyond the talking heads of CNN and Fox News to the grassroots of Everytown, America. Unfortunately this effectiveness is limited by community members' desire to engage their media.
General apathy on the part of the student body permits those in positions of influence or power to intimidate right minded individuals from expressing their ideas. I know a 1L who took issue with a certain column in the last issue of The Advocate. Although the column was passed off as an opinion piece, she felt the facts cited misrepresented the situation and cast her in a bad light. I prompted her to write a letter to the editor to protest, and she even wrote one, but upon reconsideration she felt submission of that letter would expose her to possible retaliation in future columns. If students who felt strongly about an issue used the forum available in The Advocate to voice their opinions, my friend may not have felt so hesitant to raise her concerns.
Furthermore, students' silence contributes to the stagnation of progress and the continuation of mediocrity. Since the last issue of The Advocate hit Bannan, several individuals have approached me to discuss its contents. Some have suggested the purpose of The Advocate, and every student organization, should be to improve the reputation of the School of Law. Others have wondered if some aspect of the paper bordered on libelous behavior. Still others had more than a few choice words to say about opinions published in its pages. I believe many of these are worthwhile and fair criticisms, but unless they are made through students' exercise of their civic rights, they remain ephemeral suggestions lost to those with editorial power. If one wants to alter policy, one must speak up.
The Advocate offers an open and accessible venue for discussion of administration policy and ideas for improvement. When someone suggested to me that The Advocate take a long view of its relationship to the SBA and SCU School of Law, I took their point as a good one. My response, though, is this: the most effective way for a student organization like The Advocate to improve the reputation of this school is to provide a fair and open forum to praise and to criticize, as the case may warrant, School of Law policy and practice. If someone wants to change the purpose of The Advocate, let them write a letter to the editor. If someone wants to suggest a way to improve the School of Law rankings, write a letter to the editor. Dean Polden reads the paper, he’ll see the suggestion. If someone enjoyed a panel, or speaker, or other resource available on campus, write a letter to the editor. The person responsible will read it and feel ten times better. Use The Advocate for its purpose, an opportunity to inform and to report important news to the students here at Santa Clara University.
It is important to understand, though, that the nature of The Advocate imposes certain limitations. Because The Advocate is a monthly publication, it is difficult to fill its pages with late breaking news, or up to the minute reports about fascinating legal developments. What has always worked best, and will continue to work best, is a more timeless approach. Instead of trying to beat daily papers, newscasts, and web media, The Advocate is best suited for op/ed pieces and feature articles that highlight the achievements of students and faculty here at SCU. Limitations in reporting should not discourage anyone from participating in their community.
A vital and lively debate should not be limited to election time. The other day I surveyed past issues of The Advocate and discovered that published letters to the editor peaked during the 2004 presidential elections. As students of the law it seems our consideration of involvement should include more than national issues. Not every graduate of SCU School of Law will find themselves ensconced in the marbled halls of Washington, D.C., lobbying to affect national policy. Many, if not most, of us will spend our days interacting with clients, firms, or corporations. We will live our lives surrounded by friends and family, flesh and blood people, if you will. In the midst of our depersonalization of the human experience, shouldn’t we wonder how to improve our state, city, neighborhoods, and families? That is the purpose of a publication like The Advocate, to provide a place to worry and to wonder about all levels of society.
If The Advocate is not immediate enough, or high tech enough, I am posting this column to my blog and I welcome feedback and comments there. I would like to see a community of people involved and, to whatever extent possible, I intend to use my access to the media to encourage that involvement. You can submit letters to the editor at editor@theadvocate.us. This column and other musings are also located at thesiegeperilous.blogspot.com. Please shed the apathy and get involved.
posted by Thuan30 | 10:24 PM
1 Comments:
Coincidentally, I just finished reading a post at A Free Vietnam urging readers to write op-ed pieces to newspapers about America's lack of muscle in demanding actual results from Vietnam improving its human rights record.
That column caused me to muse about my role in social activism, and your column compounded it. Social reactions definitely play a large role in persuading us not to criticize. Although America has a free press, we have never had a free society. By nature humanity judges. If I am to buy a car, I must judge whether car A is better than car B before I spend my money.
If I am going to associate with people, I naturally do the same. Will person A help me better than person B? Or more precisely, will person A help me be better than person B would help? Man is inherently self-interested, not just in moving up the social ladder, but in satisfying the individual moral ethos that dictates our conscience. We want to feel good too.
I am Christian, and my religious dogma states we should not judge. It happens anyway. People are not perfect. What that results in, then, is a restrained--not a free--press. America's press is not truly free because man is inherently judgemental.
More importantly, take Vietnam. A Free Vietnam urged people to write op-ed pieces citing Vietnam's gross human rights abuses because President Bush is traveling in Asia currently. However, I, having family in Vietnam, could never write such a piece, if I wanted to. Any public writings critical of Vietnam coming from my pen would endanger the lives of my family. Therefore, Vietnam's government indirectly limits America's freedom of the press.
The blogosphere helps in some regard, by making it easier to keep an identity anonymous if you want to criticize, however, it is not foolproof. Take this blog for example, it doesn't allow anonymous comments, and therefore limits the bounds in which commenters will go.
Good luck engendering more comments. I hope you get letters. Especially at a law school. You should have an abundance of opinionated, intelligent people ready to opine.
Post a Comment
<< Home