Features
Additional Resources
From the Editorial Staff... - Faculty hiring: student opinion is essential
The hiring processes currently occurring in some departments have brought to light one of the unequivocally good policies here at William Jewell College: involving students in the hiring of new professors. The College’s tendency is to invite a short-listed candidate to teach a mock class and to present research to both students and faculty. The faculty members in the relevant department solicit students’ attendance at such events and request feedback about the candidate—feedback which presumably factors into the greater hiring process. In addition, some departments facilitate interaction between the candidate and students without faculty members present. This gives students a glimpse at the more relaxed and perhaps more genuine candidate.
We at the Monitor appreciate this policy because it provides a role in the professor-hiring process to those who are most affected by the final decision: the students. Students are the ones who will interact most with the new professor (associate, assistant or otherwise). Students will be taught by and have their work graded by whomever the College hires. Students will expect to acquire significant skills and experiences from their interactions with this person. These are far more important matters than who will be your colleague and sit next to you at faculty meetings and events, such as Opening Convocation and Graduation.
This is not to downplay the important role faculty members play in such decisions. Faculty members likely know better than students the skills a good professor needs or what emphasis each department is currently lacking. Faculty members know of some potential benefits for students to find in a new professor. Again, however, it is clear that such hiring decisions affect the students more than members of the faculty, implying that students ought to have a say in who is hired.
While this policy is commendable, it can be effective only if students are willing to participate in the candidate screening process. We at the Monitor wish to encourage students to attend meet-and-greets with potential professors and sit in for their sample lectures. By doing so, students may not only improve their experiences within a department but also affect the quality of education for future Cardinals.
Think about some of your favorite professors. Now think about some of the factors that potentially earned them their job offers at William Jewell. The person that is delivering the mock lecture with gusto could be a favorite teacher in years to come. Whether or not student opinion is a major factor in the hiring process is at least partially determined by students’ actively seeking involvement in the hiring process. We commend the College for including students in this process, but urge students to take advantage of the opportunity to make their voices heard.
From the Editorial Staff... - Internet: What happens there goes everywhere
The Editorial Staff
2/10/12
Social networking is an art form. Whether managing Facebook profiles, Twitter pages, YouTube channels or personal blogs, what one puts on the Internet for public consumption should be considered carefully. It is one’s own business what he or she wants to post. Censorship is not the issue here. It is self-control and thoughtfulness when it comes to the Internet. In an era in which social networking has moved beyond personal amusement, it is prudent to be aware that what we publish electronically will remain long after we have forgotten about it.
Our goal is not to downplay the fun that online platforms can provide for their users. Social networking can be used for many things, including building personal and professional relationships, sharing media with others or writing about an experience. Versatility is the reason sites like Facebook and Twitter are billion-dollar business ventures. So, “What is the problem?” some might ask. The answer: self-restraint.
There are standards of acceptable conduct, even online. Social media plays a major role in how some people see others. That is definitely scary to think about when it is first realized that the judger may not know the judge beyond the pixels of his or her computer screen. Sadly, as it relates to social structures and popularity, perception is reality.
Thus, boasting about rigorous study at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry probably will not gain extra points in a hiring process. Posting a scathing tweet about how anything and everything “sucks” will not cinch anyone’s chances of receiving a prestigious internship. Sharing that new Wiz Khalifa video with every person on that growing friend list—including grandma and grandpa—may not be the wisest move.
While higher security settings and private profiles are available to help alleviate some of the dangers of prying eyes, it is important to remember that with technology there is a way around every block, password, firewall and privilege preference. Proxies and hackers are not just your friends but they also are friends of the application-check people, the background-check people and ultimately the paycheck people. Those are the same people who will not appreciate one’s exceptional ability to bludgeon the English language or swear every three syllables.
Jason Sudeikis joked while dressed as Satan on Saturday Night Live, saying, “That’s why I created the Internet, so bad decisions could live forever.” While it might be funny, there is also a grain of truth in the joke.
So, the next time your hand impulsively goes to the post, publish or tweet button, take a second to review exactly what it is you are saying to the world. Ask yourself, “Am I okay with this being a representation of me, permanently?” Quite often, there is no real-world application to temper the characteristics displayed online.
If a potential employer sees something objectionable in your online avatar, he or she may not give you the chance to defend yourself before cutting you from the list of candidates. Online profiles have become extensions of how others define us, not a license to broadcast every thought unapologetically. Just because the Internet can be a place where embarrassing snapshots, rant-like statuses and general chaos will live forever does not mean one has to contribute to the madness.
From the Editorial Staff... - The media’s responsibility to the public
The Editorial Staff
2/3/12
Last week the death of former Penn State University football coach Joe Paterno made national headlines.
Paterno, who coached Penn State for 46 seasons before being fired in the wake of a sex abuse scandal last year, succumbed to lung cancer on Jan. 22. For the second time in two days, CBS Sports reported Paterno’s death.
CBS reporter Adam Jacobi erroneously announced Paterno’s death on Jan. 21, as the coach still fought for his life in a Pennsylvania hospital. Jacobi received false word of Paterno’s death via a Twitter post by Onward State, a student-run news organization at Penn State. Onward State Managing Editor Devon Edwards posted the tweet after receiving an email informing him of Paterno’s death. The email turned out to be a hoax. The news spread rapidly until Paterno’s sons took to Twitter to announce that their father was still alive. Edwards has since resigned from his position at Onward State, and Jacobi was fired by CBS.
Unfortunately, the erroneous Paterno report is not an isolated incident. Last year, NPR mistakenly reported the death of former Ariz. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords after Giffords suffered gunshot wounds in a now infamous shooting that claimed six lives. Giffords survived the shooting and briefly returned to Congress before resigning last month to focus on recovery. The mistaken reports involving Paterno and Giffords respectively are merely the most well-known incidents of mistaken reporting in recent years. Similar errors of a small magnitude occur with great frequency.
These glaring journalistic errors are often the result of a burning desire to be the first to report a story. This desire is nothing new. Reporters always have sought to “get the scoop” before their competitors. Many of the most famous journalists in history made their names by being the first to break a big story. Yet speed is only one of the most important aspects of journalism. Accuracy is another. Unfortunately, speed and accuracy tend to conflict, and all too often the latter is sacrificed for the sake of the former. Fact-checking has taken a back seat to news-breaking. This is particularly true in the internet age. Today it is possible to break a story with one or two sentences and the click of the button. Combined with the plethora of media outlets competing for attention, this is a recipe for disaster.
The staff of the Hilltop Monitor believes that media outlets, whether they be major multinational conglomerates or small college newspapers, ought to re-emphasize conscientiously the importance of accuracy in reporting.
Prompt reporting is certainly important, but that reporting is useless if it is not correct. Every false story further erodes the public’s trust in journalism and rightfully so. The Monitor staff is bound to make mistakes. We are only human. However, we believe in accuracy and will not sacrifice facts for the sake of speed. It is better to mourn the dead 10 minutes late than to make funeral plans for the living.
From the Editorial Staff... - Censorship: limiting student expression?
the Editorial Staff
12/9/11
One of the reasons the Missouri Baptist Convention initially decided to split with William Jewell College regarded free speech. The Convention was upset with the College’s lax policies regarding what could be presented by the College Department of Theatre as well as discussed in the Hilltop Monitor. William Jewell College officials, however, made the decision not to censor these outlets. Since then, William Jewell has made even more progress regarding free speech and performance on campus. One organization, in particular, though, is still limited regarding what it can present to students.
College Union Activities works to improve student life on campus by providing activities for students like a performance by the Second City Improv Troupe and the winter formal. However, this week, an article in the Hilltop Monitor revealed that this organization must restrict certain performers as well as content at dances. Comedians are told to keep their material to a PG-13 level, and songs played at dances must be edited and approved by Student Affairs.
These restrictions seem to go against the principles of free speech which caused the break with the Baptist Convention. Not only that, but it conveys an attitude that the College does not view its students as adults and must shelter them from anything that could be offensive. Of course, there are students who would be offended by curse words in songs, but part of being an adult is realizing that not everything is going to be sensitive to your needs. Off the Hill, people are not going to ask if you mind their cursing—most likely, they’ll simply let the bombs fly. Sheltering our students more than necessary just makes them that much more ill-prepared to meet the real world.
In addition to preparing students for the disregard most of the population will have towards their preferences, lessening censorship on the Hill will allow students to make decisions for themselves. Whether it is an uncensored song or an off-color comedy bit, students should be given the opportunity to choose whether or not they want to listen. Just because content has a less than favorable status (according to current standards) does not mean that students will gravitate toward it if and when policies slacken. The forbidden fruit the media dangles in front of us may not look so shiny once a definitive “no” is taken away. Every decision made is a learning opportunity. Consequences can either be good or bad, so please give us the opportunity to learn by action, not by hearsay.
These actions also do not fit with the College’s attitude toward content provided by other organizations. The Hilltop Monitor and Student Senate, along with CUA, receive their funding from the student activities fee, which all students pay as part of their tuition. Senate and the Hilltop Monitor, however, are not censored in any way, though there are certainly administrators that would like to screen what the Monitor prints. Not to screen what the Monitor is doing but censor CUA is contradictory; in fact, neither should be censored in the first place.
Certainly, if students indicated that they appreciated this action by Student Affairs, then it may be justified. Yet, the general feeling is that more students would rather see such events uncensored. Protecting the general “culture” of William Jewell is admirable and should be done to ensure that the institution continues to adapt to its ever-changing student body. All the Monitor staff asks is that student input on the matter be considered crucial to the decisions made. Society changes, standards change, but what never changes is the need to consider the opinions of others if actions are to be done for the greatest good.
Search
Current PDF
