The Observer, March 3, 2006
Volume XXXVIII, Issue 19
Free Speech Zone: Editorial offends class officer, stories lack vital information
To the Editor:
Last week's -Observer staff editorial criticized the class officers of 2006 for
forwarding a WKYC exposé to the class and chose to defend and support the right
of the administration to filter information from students and perpetuate the notion that everything is just fine at Case. How can the school paper endorse such reprehensible action on the part of the administration? Students pay to go to this school and to bear the reputation that comes with attending Case. Therefore it is vital that students are kept up to date on what exactly that reputation is.
It's true, the exposé is terrible; however, it is also true that the Daily failed to send this link out, after asserting its mission to relate the mentions of Case in the news to the campus community. The exposé was forwarded to the class one week after it was published. The Observer reported on the news story a full two weeks later, probably prompted by the same email that was sent to the class of 2006.
In The Observer's article on security upgrades which was first covered by the
Plain Dealer a full three weeks earlier, there was not even an evaluation on the
current powers of security by The Observer. Not even a question as to the reasons Case security has been ineffective in managing the crime so far. These are vital pieces of information required to fully explain and justify this transition.
Most of the crime which happens on campus is non-violent theft. Arming security
guards, trained or untrained, will not decrease theft on this campus by any means. What is the real need for this change now? It probably has to do more
with money than sense.
Case funds half of the $2.1 million UCI police budget. How much cheaper will this move be for Case? In lieu of Case's budget problems, could it be that Case is placing their budgetary concerns over student safety? Furthermore, these new officers will have the authority to arrest and shoot. Now instead of a write up or filling out a security report, a student could possibly get arrested or even worse, shot. Obviously, The Observer as a paper empowered to represent student ideals and concerns have extensively addressed these student concerns in their coverage. Instead of practicing responsible journalistic principles by checking facts, ideas, statements and reasoning, The Observer has merely become another piece of administrative propaganda, like the "most powerful learning environment" garbage of which students see no tangible proof.
It is such perfunctory reporting that leads to irresponsible dissemination of
information to the student body and truly hinders those who are working to find the truth. Until The Observer can produce quality news reports, perhaps it should refrain from criticizing other organizations' poorly done news pieces.
Pavan K. Thangudu
Class of 2006, Vice President
Editor's Note: The intent of the editorial
in question was not to condemn
the actions of 2006 class officers, but to
encourage students to scrutinize information
provided by the media, be it The
Observer or a local television station. In
other words, there is innate responsibility
incumbent upon the public to be savvy
and informed, as well as upon the media
to be thorough and accurate.
