obviously i'll have something to say about this...

I'll be good.

 

Steven A is an ass and he knows it. I respect C. Vivian and Jim.

 

Jason's beginning to look hypocritical to me. He uses his position and column to question, ream and criticize anyone who criticizes him and then accuses other people (Jackson, Sharpton and Stringer) of grandstanding. I think he's an interesting columnist and enjoy reading his stuff, but lately, his self-important attitude is getting annoying. Stringer had more of a right to speak out against Imus than anyone, and to suggest someone who is a victim of a racist and sexist verbal assaults should ignore it or not voice their opinion on it isn't going to do much to help promote equality.

 

Is it just me or did anyone else notice the immense leap in logic taken here by Jason when he accused Stringer of doing all this to get attention for women's basketball?

Stringer said she held the press conference to allow the nation to see her players, to let them know that these were intelligent and articulate young women, not ... well, you know. She wanted to make sure people saw and heard the players themselves rather than reading a statement on a piece of paper.

Was that really necessary? That's debatable. What is not debatable is that Stringer said she was standing up for her players, not for the sport of women's basketball. And yet Whitlock follows her speech by saying, ``... if this is a thing about more publicity for women's college basketball, more attention, more media coverage, then that needed to be said up front -- that this is about attention for women's basketball and all that other stuff.''

OK, Jason, but that is not what she said. She has never said that and has never given the impression that's what this was all about. Putting words into the mouths of others without solid evidence that they are lying isn't a good policy.

Claire Smith had it right. All Stringer was doing was standing up for her players, not starting a PR campaign for Rutgers or the women's game. Again, whether doing so was a good idea is certainly up for debate, but Stringer's motives are not.

Just keepin' it ... ah, whatever.

 

Dave,

I'd agree that America's education system is, shall we say, not always terrific, but I'd be very careful about comparisons to Europe or Asia without considering significant changes to our current system. I mean total, down the way extracurricular programs are handled (read: sports) the ages in which children go to school, and the kinds of schools they go to. In some ways our "failure" is really hallmark of our success - there are many more ways to make money in this country than by taking the greased track through education. A garbage man in America lives often more comfortably than an engineer in Austria. They're two very different worlds.

 

Since I generally try to avoid commenting on the feeding frenzies that Whitlock threads become, I'll throw in my two cents about American education.
It seems to me what we, as a country, do really, really well is secondary education.
People come from all over the world to go to college here. And it's not just the Harvards and Yales, but the Michigans, Wisconsins, Tech schools, whatever. This is the shining point of American education.
So why not try to make primary education a little more like secondary?
To me, this means two things, choice and freedom.
Choice: This one I'm not as sold on as freedom, but one of the biggest things about college is students chose where they go. This means there's competition for the $$$ that students bring with them. Competition raises all ships, yada yada yada.
Freedom: Okay, this is my big thing. Professors at colleges have freedom in how they teach. They have almost infinite latitude in their curriculum and it lets them come up with interesting, innovative teaching methods (yes, some are duds who care more about their work in the lab than teaching, but this calls for generalities).
It's the opposite in primary education. More and more, states and the federal government are forcing teachers to teach to standardized tests, which basically lays out the curriculum for them. Instead of trained professionals trying out new ideas, everything becomes more homogeneous. This means teachers -- the vast majority of which got into the profession because they really do care about helping kids -- are handcuffed instead of being able to find new ideas, the best of which would rise to the top and become the standard until better ideas came along.
Are you telling me politicians know how to teach kids better than teachers? give me a break.

Rant over. Please continue with your regularly scheduled programing.

 

I'd agree with you if not for the fact Stringer spoke for 30 minutes at the news conference. Thirty minutes (!!!) of prepared remarks.

This was the sort of major incident that required C. Vivian getting up and giving a stump speech for a solid half hour??

If she was so concerned about letting America hear for the players, I'd let 'em... you know... talk.

And Rutgers HAS benefited from an inordinate amount of PR and possible inroads come recruiting time thanks to this entire thing. Whether it's intentional or unintentional, that cannot be denied.

 

This is what Whitlock wrote:
Just last week, popular black comedian DL Hughley appeared on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and completely trashed the Rutgers women’s players. Hughley called them “nappy headed” and “ugly” among other things. “The Tonight Show” has far more reach than Imus’ old radio/TV show. Hughley resonates with black kids far more than Imus.

What of that do you disagree with? The Tonight Show certainly reaches more people than Imus did. And Hughley certainly resonates more with black kids than Imus. Don't forget that Hughley was/is a part of that "Original Kings of Comedy" which certainly resonates in the black community. The guy has done a lot more than a few forgettable sitcoms.

 

Almost all college preparatory schools in Europe, and the Pacific Rim require students to pass a test to get out of school. These schools are similiar, for example, to an suburban high school here.

Why is education better in those countries? Simple...they're welfare states. I don't mean that in a bad way, either, necessarily. I'm saying that even the poor people in those countries get health insurance and free meals. In some of those countries, the drug-addicted parents who would spend all day burned out on the couch in America get their daily fix of methadone to function. Schools aren't funded through fucking property taxes and bond issues, like they are here; the government funds the whole thing. Of course, those countries are a lot smaller geographically than America (I include Canada, as we know quite well most of the inhabitants hover within 300 miles of the American border).

 

Omar, maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't remember seeing anywhere that she spoke for 30 minutes. I've tried reading this thread all at once and it's got my eyes crossed just a touch. Completely likely that I've missed it.

It seems that time is a big issue in the whole C. Viv debate here. In the two columns linked earlier in the thread, JW says in one column that "it was 15 minutes" and in another "that it felt like 15 minutes."

JW, if you're saying reporting is such an important part of being a columnist, how about making up your mind? If you don't know that it's 15 minutes, that's OK. Say it felt like 15 minutes. But don't double back on yourself and state it as fact and then assumption.

 

I think Omar is talking about the original press conference held just (a week?) after the Imus thing, not the forum that just happened.

 

Methinks you're correct. It was a long press conference.