Everything to Everyone

As most of you know, I work at a mid-sized university of 15 thousand students.  For some, this is a very rewarding experience, but for me I want to bang my head against the wall due to utterly unnecessary initiatives I am subjected to in Director's meetings.  The newest plan of action is to create an Inter-faith council, and give them a large office space on campus in the university center.  I am not against formalized religion, even though I do not subscribe to one, but why would you create that type of group for a university campus?  Beyond the obvious concerns of what faiths make up their Inter-faith council, and the dangers of discriminating the less popular or accepted, it makes one ask, what is the goal of the modern university?  Why are modern American universities trying to become everything to everyone?

The university must ask within itself, "what is our mission?"  If the mission of the modern university is to enlighten young minds with learner-centered teaching, public engagement, intellectual freedom, multiculturalism, why would you promote a one-sided way of thinking by introducing religion?  Religion is not the enemy of higher education by a long shot.  I just feel that introducing "university approved" religions would send the wrong message to the students that did not practice them.  How can you go about spouting off comments of multiculturalism and intellectual freedom, and then introduce old-hat philosophy like a government/school/official set of religious practice on campus?

 People that go to a restaurant and have appreciate a nice bottle of wine would let you know, that if you fill half the bottle with water, the wine will not be any good.  That is how I feel about the modern university structure we are trying to move toward in our society.  We are filling the bottle with water, and not concentrating on what makes the university such a special experience.  A university is an environment with open doors and open minds that provides a platform for social discourse, which creates a learning unique to any other stage in life.  Anything less than that, should not be tolerated, but I guess we can no longer ask for excellence.  In a society that puts more emphasis on convenience over substance, I may just have to settle for the watering down of American institutions that continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

What Does a New Jail or Prison Fix?

I want you to ponder this question, what does a new jail or prison actually fix? I ask you this because we as Americans are so quick to impose a tax to build a new jail or sentence convicted citizens to lengthy terms, that we actually forget about the rehabilitation process. I want to know what you think about what jails and prisons actually fix.

~Lew

Who gets a Pass?

Maybe it is just me, but I notice on a very regular basis that steroids sparks divisive conversation. And on almost every instance the name Barry Bonds comes up. "What do you think about Barry?" "How do you feel about Barry breaking the record?" I think I depress the question askers with every response. "I am not only happy to see the greatness that is an athlete eclipsing a great milestone like the homerun record, I could not be happier for Barry Bonds!" Amidst all of the controversy and troubles he can still achieve great things. To me this is a display of the best of human spirit, if we believe it we can achieve it. I have read reporters calling Barry a fraud and a cheater, but to me I can only see him as great. A man who has never tested positive of anything gets defined as a cheater and a fraud, but others in his profession and around professional sports get a pass. Why is that?

How can someone, anyone define the greatest player since Willie Mays (if not ever?) as a fraud? A player that has accomplished so many things in his career, in comparison, I would be willing to bet that none of the naysayers (be it fans or journalists) have accomplished anywhere near that much in their own careers! A record as difficult as 755 homeruns certainly does not come over night, and it doesn't come from the tip of a needle. Only hard work, twenty plus years of standout play, and a passion to be the best you can possibly be can result in that many home runs. A player with the most 30+ homerun seasons, tied for the most 40+ homerun seasons, and the single season homerun record seems like a player one could hardly accuse of the lack of a credible resume.

So if Barry is a fraud? What defines a fraud? Last year one of the freshest faces in sports tested positive for performance enhancing drugs and the sporting news community laughed it off like hiccup. How does Shawne Merriman test positive for steroids, then go on to be the cover boy for ESPN the Magazine the next issue? Is he not a fraud? Or is it simply that they like Shawne Merriman, and reporters have an axe to grind with Barry? I don't ever want to hear any praise for a player that tests positive for steroids, but is excused because the press like him, if they can't give the same respect to another player that has never tested positive of anything besides arrogance. We see the power of the press everyday, with the way a good writer can influence the beliefs of so many readers. I want to see the end of irresponsible reporting, not on the behalf of Barry Bonds, but the improvement of public knowledge. There is nothing more powerful than ignorance, and nothing sounds more ignorant than someone trying to tell me that Barry Bonds isn't the greatest player of my time.