Writer’s comments have all been made before
Only on the surface has Zandarski changed his tune. First, an education degree isn’t worth the “treasure (he) just left in the toilet,” and now “a lot of them are very good (teachers)” and sometimes it’s because of their “passion!” Whoa! You mean that people perform better in their career when they are passionate about it? Does he not know that nearly every point he makes about teachers can be applied to any other field? This includes the comments on the passion, the degree, the apathy, etc.
His first letter didn’t lend any weight to his argument; after all, he was putting down one of the more difficult programs at the university, and he is a history major. Ironic?
I don’t really want this to digress into a “my major’s better” pissing contest, but he did say education is what you major in when college is “too hard.” Though this time, he removed such inflammatory phrases like “YOU SUCK,” and an education degree is a “joke,” and “you idiot,” making this past letter somewhat more intelligible, nothing he said was anything new. After sifting through all his axioms, you find little substance.
People have been arguing about teacher certification for decades. Had he done research, he’d realize that in many states you can major in math, English, science, etc., and minor in education to obtain a teaching certificate. If he had even looked at the course requirements of all the ADED programs, he’d realize that those students do learn quite a bit in their chosen discipline. If he had looked at the requirements, he would have noticed that education majors do study adolescent psychology and behavior or “something along those lines.” We have a great facility here on campus, the CDC, where students study children (and their behavior) on a daily basis.
His comments on the property tax situation have been made a thousand times before, and more qualified people have examined the situation and even proposed solutions. I’m sure he knows all this though, especially how pissed citizens get when all of a sudden a huge tax burden is shifted to state taxes and off local property taxes. I’m sure he’d rather have an economics major weigh in on that — they are more qualified.
As far as his comments on school being like a day care, I’m quite perplexed. I can never tell if he is discussing secondary education or primary education, and they are two different realms. Either way, the day care comments and his proposition that students attend classes only once or twice a day sound like something you’d read in a high school newspaper. Woops, I may have been passive aggressive there and I hope he doesn’t write back quoting his high school GPA. His ACT score was quite sufficient.
Junior English major
Not all may 4 followers are “hippies”
It was interesting to read the different editorials you published in the May 4, 2005, Daily Kent Stater. There were pieces from several points of view, and that is not only appropriate, but I personally feel that the Daily Kent Stater would have missed an opportunity if it had not published diverse opinions.
That having been said, I struggled with Tony Cox’s editorial. I went to the “SDS Reunion” movie/panel discussion Sunday afternoon. I went to the candlelight vigil Tuesday evening. I went to the memorial at noon on Wednesday. I haven’t been to every one of these events for the last 35 years, but I’ve been to a lot (probably 20). I guess you could say that I care about May 4. If I follow Mr. Cox’s logic, I must therefore be either a “washed-up hippie” or a “poorly-groomed undergraduate.” I’ll let you (or Mr. Cox) decide which category best describes me.
I graduated from Kent in 1974 with a bachelor’s in chemistry. I am a card-carrying Republican and business owner. My wife and I have funded a Medallion Scholarship at Kent State. We also have season tickets to the Kent men’s and women’s basketball teams.
Let me tell you about how I spent May 4, 2005. I attended the May 4 memorial with a fellow KSU grad who drove here from his home in Columbus. He had to work late Tuesday, and he didn’t make it to the campus until 10:50 p.m. It was important to him to make it here in time for the candlelight vigil. He is a U.S. Army veteran and was in ROTC with Bill Schroeder. While on campus Wednesday, we met up with another KSU grad who was attending Kent State on the GI bill in May of 1970. I also had a lengthy conversation with a faculty member about efforts to help Northeast Ohio attract and retain high quality people, businesses and jobs in the future. (My point is that we’re not exactly a bunch of radicals.)
Were there people commemorating May 4 who had a political agenda, and sometimes an agenda that my friends and I don’t support? Were there people shouting loudly with whom I strongly disagree? Were there some people who looked like they may have been “hippies”? Were there people who had grooming habits that I don’t find attractive? Yes to all of the above.
Were there Kent State students there? It sure looked like it to me, but I didn’t check IDs. Were there also people there who are Republicans, service veterans who didn’t belong to or support Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kent State alumni and faculty who love and support this university and its mission? There were. I’m one, and I’m proud of it.
If Mr. Cox would like to talk to someone who doesn’t fit his stereotypes, I’d love to communicate with him. I’d like to because when we allow others to become stereotypes, it makes events like May 4 more likely, and I don’t think that’s what Mr. Cox had in mind at all.
Editorial board is manipulating the facts
The editorial board claimed that “Senate Republicans need to get over it” when it referred to Republicans trying to weaken the filibuster. Well, in my view, the editorial board needs to “get over it.” While their forum was full of liberal propaganda, it was no where near full of facts. Let me first back up my liberal propaganda claim by simply saying that I guess the board feels it is “balanced” by ripping on Republicans for seven paragraphs, then saying three negative sentences about Democrats.
Moving on, while the board was correct in its claim that Republicans want to bend the rules in their favor, they seemed to leave out the fact that all Republicans want is a simple up-and-down vote on President Bush’s judicial nominees. After looking at this information, you may want to change “Republicans are angry over Democrats’ refusal to approve seven judicial nominees” to “Republicans are angry over Democrats’ refusal to even vote on the approval of seven judicial nominees.”
I would also like to ask if the board forgot that during Clinton’s presidency, the Democrats in Congress demanded an up-and-down vote for his nominees? Well, to refresh your memory, they whined and complained enough to get the simple votes that are guaranteed in the Constitution. If it was OK for Clinton to get the nomination votes he wanted, why not let Bush have his turn? The answer is simple: Democrats do not favor judges that actually interpret the law from the bench. They favor judges who legislate from the bench, which Bush’s nominees will not do.
Finally, the board failed to let its readers know that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist sent out a letter of compromise to Senate Democrats last week. The compromise would guarantee 100-hour debates on each judicial nominee and a simple up-and-down vote would follow.
Will Democrats agree to the compromise? Probably not.
Anyone can see that they would much rather waste their time getting nothing accomplished than actually help this country and follow the Constitution. This article is a perfect example of how journalists can manipulate readers’ opinions.
Sophomore political science major