![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been trying to resist blogging about this particular scandal for days, but as it continues to erupt I can no longer resist. "Currently the Aggie Editor-in-Chief poses a more significant threat to the Aggie than the ASUCD government does -- As highlighted by the recent resignation of Editor-in-Chief Stone over allegations of abuse of power, the near mutiny of editors against last year’s Editor-in-Chief Fuller, the loss of lawsuits by the previous year’s Editor-in-Chief Vo, etc etc." Laabs vs California Aggie ASUCD Supreme Court, Case 29, 02/21/06 (p8)
Recently, the UC Davis Campus Media Board1 appointed the new California Aggie Editor-in-Chief for the 2007-2008 year: Sports Writer Eddie Lee.
Current Editor-in-Chief Peter Hamilton shortly fired sports writer Eddie Lee. The charge was plagerism. Presently, despite currently fired status, Lee is still lined up to become the next Editor-in-Chief.
Today a letter surfaced signed by 31 staff members of the California Aggie. It alleges that current E-in-C Hamilton fired Lee because he wanted Campus Editor / Features Editor Talia Kennedy (whom he is having a thinly disguised secret relationship with) to become the next E-in-C.
Additionally, in the letter, the staff demanded an explanation for over a thousand dollars that are unaccounted for from Peter & Talia's trip to the California College Media Association awards banquet, calling it "tantamount to embezzlement."
In response, Hamilton has asked for the resignation of all 31 signees of the letter.
Talia Kennedy is also noted as, while the Aggie reporter assigned to cover ASUCD, having allegedly mated with ASUCD Senator Darnell Holloway. ASUCD history repeats itself.
Incidently, the E-in-C previous to this, Matty Jojola, is the only one in known memory to have not been involved in a major shame filled scandal. Gold star for you Matty.
The unfortunate history of Aggie Editor-in-Chiefs is recounted by the illustrious former Chief Justice Fricke in the Case 29 Opinion:
In the opinion, the ASUCD Supreme Court noted that the current set-up in effect resulted in ASUCD passing the buck of authority unto the Media Board, who thereupon passed the buck to the Editor-in-Chief, leaving the E-in-C essentially unchecked and free to make the basement a kingdom unto himself (/herself).
While it wasn't the Courts place to recommend a solution to that problem, it did seem to be that a good solution would be to make the Editor-in-Chief share authority with the two most senior other editors. This way they would be prevented from firing people on a whim, getting into bad contracts that no one besides themselves think are a good idea, and the numerous other hijinks Editor-in-Chiefs have gotten themselves into lately. On any account if the Media Board had bothered to read the Court opinion I'd like to think it might have occured to them that the system needed some kind of fix.
1 The Media Board is a board of miscellenious persons from University Administration or student media organizations, to which the ASUCD government has delegated governing authority for the ASUCD-run media units (KDVS & the Aggie) in order to provide some separation between the sordid politics of ASUCD, and the sordid politics of campus media.
See Also
The "Budget Hearing Scandal" - What began with mere accusations of people attending budget hearings while high eventually expanded to exposing intricate plots involving dirty secrets and sex.
Saucy Rant II
May. 17th, 2005 11:48 am So I woke up this morning filled with regret over somethign I'd done the night before. Filled with regrets and second-thoughts. And my internet access was down so I couldn't see how bad it was, but I had a feeling that I'd written a rash and overly saucy theological rant the night before. Anyway I finally got around to looking it (in the computer lab) and its not as bad as I'd feared, so I'm going to go ahead and make some more saucy comments.
But first to reemphasize from last night, and on further contemplation since then, I think the single most underrated misunderstanding in the history of theology is whether or not it sounds like it would be a pleasant arrangement has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is theologically true.
But now to cause controversy in another area. Military recruitment at universities. For the past two weeks or more the letters to the editor in the California Aggie have been filled with arguments back and forth on this subject. In particular I'd like to single todays letter by one Leah Sicat out for ridicule. Her thesis statement: "alternative information about the military is rarely provided to students. Usually the good side about the military, rather than its connection to war, is presented. So, what does she want, a warning label similarly to the "caution: hot" found on coffee cups? Caution: military duty may involve war? I mean I try to think of the alternatives when someone argues against something and two occur to me on this subject: (1) as Sicat advocates, have them deliver a stern disclaimer to potential recruits, or (2) the more commonly advocated removal of them from universities. As to point one, I can hardly imagine it being anything other than just that, a stern warning that joining the military isn't a decision to be taken lightly and may bring the participant under hostile fire in a foreign war. I must say however, that I think they should already know that and it seems like a silly solution, though easily implemented if one feels its really prudent.
And as to point two, this implies there are better places for recruiters to hang out ... like high schools?? If one's believes, as Licat and many others seem to, that military recruiters exploit those who don't see any other opportunities for themselves, it seems like this solution would have the opposite of the intended affect. In conclusion on this point, I think university students are probably much better prepared to intelligently consider the offers of military recruiters than potential other audiences, and more likely to have other opportunities and thus not be compelled to join through "lack of other opportunities."
And for a grande finale of ruining my sensitivity credentials, two more bonus points. Firstly I'd like to note that Licat refers to herself and others as "students of colour" throughout her article, a term which I personally find racist as it describes persons of european descent as being "colourless" and inherently different from everyone else. But moreover, I'd like to mention the perpetual argument that people join the military for the "opportunities" and are then exploited when they are sent into military operations. There is one reason and one reason only people are paid to be in the military: to fight, or to be prepared to fight. During peace time, military personnel are maintained and paid beyond their necessity because they are being paid to be PREPARED to fight when needed. If one joins the military for the opportunities, but is not prepared to fight, one is being paid for something they are representing to have but in fact do not -- they are committing nothing short of fraud. The military is not a welfare organization whose purpose is simply to provide jobs.
In other news, my little brother is currently on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Apparently he'd injured his hand before heading out there again, but didn't tell anyone lest it cause him not to be sent to Iraq. I must say that his courage and honest desire to fulfill his duties makes me very proud.
