Firstly, I realized that if I post these things as links, then clicking on the main title will carry the reader to the original article, rather than the blog post. I would actually prefer that people didn’t read the published article (that’s why I have this blog). So I’ll make a discrete link here, and proceed to post my original.

Violating journalistic dogma is no concern of mine. If I want to say a “notably ‘nicer’ face of USC”, that is very well what I intend to say. I put quotes on ‘nicer’ because I am not at all saying that it is nicer in a conventional context.

I like to make metaphors and similes about things I have no to extremely limited experience with.

Is USC trying to transform its part of Los Angeles into the posh, upscale Westwood?

Destroying it only makes it another strip mall in a neighborhood filled with them. I’ll take a sub from Sandwich Island at the UV over yet another Quiznos in a Stepford Wives shopping center any day of the week.

And I like to sound like a “Freshman in High School” (Thanks Comments!), and make simple, one-sided arguments that can be summarized in a single simple sentence. (Though, I believe there are vast quantities of Freshmen that writer far better than DT-level stuff)

The U.V. is our weird, eerie shopping center. It’s a place where you can buy placental shampoo at the local grocery store. But it’s ours and it’s intrinsically a part of the Trojan experience and our community as a whole.

Enough complaints, here is the original, with puns, quotations, and rhetorical questions in-tact — a more sensitive, more subtle, and significantly more well-organized opinion about The Village at USC:

The Village at USC: “Improvement”

Residents expressed mixed opinions about USC’s plan for The Village at an open house at the Galen Center this past Thursday. While The Village will certainly offer a different, notibly “nicer” face of USC and its surrounding community, it is debatable whether or not these improvements will indeed be improvements.

Necessary in completing the goals to improve the quality of student life through the construction of the new plaza, is the destruction of much of older student life and culture. Inherent with any efforts at modernization is the destruction of past efforts, of past culture, perhaps of past memories — USC should recognize that building The Village does not only involve construction, but also destruction, and that its claims of “improving the quality of life” and making the “best college culture” assert a clear type of cultural supremacy.

The recent news story published by the Daily Trojan seems to suggest a shared consensus among students that the construction of The Village will be a good thing. Opposition is painted as being restricted primarily to local non-student residents. Concerns seem to be centered around the idea that The Village will be too student-centered, catered to a more wealthy student population contrasted with a less-affluent surrounding area.

But the implications of the construction of The Village stretch far beyond the shopping options presented or whether or not tasty and affordable bread from Superior is no longer easily available. Indeed, constructing The Village is an example of modern cultural imperialism.

Any statement regarding enhancement or improvement suggests that one situation is better than another. The construction of The Village is no exception. If USC were not trying to make an improvement of an area, why would it spend so much time on money on doing it? It is clear that USC is trying to “improve” the future area of The Village, and in making this assertion of improvement, it is saying that the new environment it will establish there will be superior to its predecessor.

These “improvements” seem to be well-intentioned enough. When completed, The Village will be closed off from cars, promoting a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Intentions to also build a DPS substation within the center reflect further commitment of USC to student safety. Certainly promoting everybody’s safety would be desired near ubiquitously.

But accompanying these benevolent intentions is a clear loss of many defining features of USC as we now know it. Closing the street from cars also means closing off the street from food trucks at that particular convenient location, which (literally) add flavor to USC’s local cuisine. Likewise, many of the unique restaurants and stores in University Village will be eliminated and likely replaced by larger chains, manifesting globalization and victory of the large corporation, while pushing more individualized flavors into further obscurity. The characteristic beeping of the crosswalk at Jefferson and McClintock will also be missed.

By calling The Village an improvement to this area is in many areas very difficult to dispute. Cleaner facilities, increased safety, improved student-housing situations – these all appear as changes that anybody would advocate. Does “improvement” though, mean transforming USC into more of oasis among urbanity – a setting drastically differing from its surrounding areas?

More green space, more lighting – great for safety, but establishing a clearly different ambiance. Is USC trying to transform its part of LA into Irvine, “America’s Safest City”?

USC is making a muscle-flexing statement with the construction of The Village, asserting what it can do, and doing just that. Certainly, USC commands jurisdiction over the area of what is to be The Village. USC’s hegemony allows it to make changes to the area; and backed with massive funds, supportive alumni, student, and faculty, the construction of the Village, accompanied by the destruction of the current University Village and surrounding buildings, seems largely unstoppable. USC has, to my knowledge, every legal right and all the logistical factors ordered to allow for the completion of this project. It is this great power that USC possesses over the area that magnifies its responsibility towards considering the implications of its actions.

What could be said of defending the current set-up could be said of nearly any situation in which a more powerful entity swallows up (whether passively, by stealing business, or actively by buying out or demolishing) smaller entities. Consider reactions of small businesses to the construction of superstores such as Wal-Marts.

That being said, USC’s transformation of what is to be the area of The Village will entail both positive changes and negative changes. Whether the positive will outnumber the negative or vice versa seems largely a matter of opinion. But at least one thing is clear: efforts of modernization of an area are accompanied not only by construction, but by destruction.

The plans for the Village at USC are quite ambitious. The plan is expected to take at least eight years, with construction beginning in mid-2012. It is expected that approximately 8,000 construction jobs and 4,000 permanent positions will be created by the project. This large scale construction will be preceded by a large scale destruction. Students graduating within the next decade will certainly not return to the same USC they left.

This article was actually left fairly intact. It also doesn’t really argue for anything that any rational person would disagree with. Of course some things were edited out or changed, but for the most part, nothing blatantly offending me at the moment;; Here is the original:

——————————-

As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues, spreading across many other cities in America, USC students seem to be absent from the political action. Two students attempted to initiate an “Occupy USC” movement, which was not met by much support. The Daily Trojan reports that perhaps students are more politically involved through dialogue than through protests. Regardless of whether or not this is true, students should seek to employ the most effective methods they can to promote what they believe in.

While protesting succeeds in bringing visibility to issues, dialogue has the potential to be a far stronger form of persuasion for USC students. Though protests should continue to be exercised as they are an essential component of maintaining a successful democracy, students should not fail to emphasize dialogue and discussion as one of the greatest assets for educated individuals wanting to create change.

The strength of a non-violent protest is creating visibility. A protest brings an issue to prominence, creating an event out of a long-standing problem. It seems news make news faster than ideas, and protests have often been successful in making headlines out of issues that people care about.

But protests do not explain things or present complex angles of issues nearly as well as dialogue. That is why it is essential that protests be accompanied by means in which those carrying grievances can engage in discussion, not just carry on a one-way conversation. Preferably, a means for those of any tiers on society’s social ladder to be able to discuss with those of the upper tiers should exist.

The ongoing Wall Street protests definitely bring to attention many of the financial problems of the United States. But what is wrong and what exactly should be done is not very clearly articulated. Lists of grievances and demonstrated discontentment need to be channeled through institutions and formed into clear political goals in order for change to occur.

This is when dialogue becomes essential, for both the current (and future) leaders of America as well as those protesting. Discussion is how grievances turn into solutions. If the conditions of 99% of American’s futures’ are shown to be clearly as bad as protestors suggest; if the reality of a situation is made more personal through discussion, then how much more is change likely to occur, than in response to a faceless “mob”?

USC students aiming to be futures leaders of America (or the world!) ought to not forget the importance of the individual when making decisions. The strength of discussion is that it has the potential to engage individuals. Discussion elevates the decisions of leaders to a more personal level. We cannot severe entirely personal biases and preferences from anyone’s decision making. Discussion reminds leaders that they are dealing with individuals, whether they like it or not, rather than homogeneous masses that mathematical functions can easily be applied to.

Certainly, we would like those both educated about the issues we care about and those who personally care about the individuals involved to deal with them. Protestors on Wall Street protestors are perhaps more knowledgeable about the consequences of many corporations’ actions than the leaders of those companies.

In this sense, “education” does not necessarily mean formal education, but real knowledge about an issue. The “education” of experience that “the 99%” have may entail a better understanding of the economy than that possessed by corporate leaders, and it needs to be communicated (as many have done a very good job doing) in order to create change.

USC student leaders should actively engage in both educating and becoming educated through discussion to become better leaders. As our school continues to seek to produce leaders with initiatives like USC L.E.A.D. (Leadership Education and Development), it should not fail to emphasize the importance of dialogue.

This has been done, and this practice should definitely continue. Recently, the Dornsife “Uncommon Converations” series held a discussion themed “Science and Its Publics: Bridging the Divide”. Also, the “Smoke-Free Campus Forum” allowed a discussion before USG takes an official position.

Dialogue is an essential part of good leadership. While protesting can effectively bring attention to issues, USC students who wish to be politically involved should also make sure to take part in discussions, whether formal or informal, to attach the strength of the individual to that which they advocate and to become better educated about other positions on the issues they address.

If the ideas that USC students advocate are truly good, then when conveyed and understood, they should create agreement. USC students should be confident in good ideas. Discussion can test whether or not diverse groups’ ideas are good, bad, or something in between. It is the duty of the educated individual to always be in pursuit of the truth. Dialogue opens the doors for opposing parties to seek this truth together.

Firstly, I recognize that the original article is on a quite uncontroversial topic. I can’t think of anybody who would rather shake hands with somebody who didn’t wash their hands after taking a dump, than with somebody who did. Yet somehow, this simple, agreeable, opinion was drastically altered into what was first an ultra-conservative germ-o-phobic response, and then to a pointless compilation of poorly made statements that make me come off as both condescending and utterly stupid.

I am astounded at how DT could corrupt such a boring, neutral, in-provocative article into a conglomeration of contradiction. It should be noted that I would gladly write more provocative and interesting articles, but I’m limited to writing what articles the editor(s) deem appropriate. Why they chose this article out of the three pitches I gave, I guessed was based on its neutrality and inoffensiveness, coupled with its relevance for celebrating USC’s new facilities. How they did what they did to it — that remains a mystery.

I probably wrote 60% of the published article. Thankfully, at least one of my statements was included (which hardly says anything):

Though it is not possible to entirely eliminate the danger of contracting mumps in general, the continued practice of standard sanitary regulations will help better prepare USC in the case of an outbreak.

A simple, rather indisputable point. Only preceded by hundreds of words of unnecessary ramble.

Also, I was not even a student in 2008. So how should I know about the 2008 response to some disease I haven’t heard of?

Here is a dull, unoffensive article that argues common sanitary practice should be practiced for obvious reasons. It was turned into a dull, offensive article that is abundant in contradictions and misuse of the word “proactive”.

———————————

The recent mumps outbreak at Cal has caused concern among some students. While there is no way in which students can completely ensure protection against disease, there are clear steps students can take towards protecting their health. Self-awareness can help students protect both themselves and others from contracting infectious diseases such as mumps.

An e-mail was issued to all students on the Wednesday morning preceding last Thursday night’s football game at Cal. The e-mail stated the nature of mumps, “an infection that is transmitted through respiratory droplets”, and warned students to be aware of some common means that the disease could be transmitted: “sharing drinks, cigarettes, towels or being coughed on.”

The University Park Health Center has issued a statement regarding the mups outbreak at UC Berkeley. It first stuggests that students ensure that they are vaccinated. Though USC requires all students to either recieve two doses of MMR vaccine or show proof of Measles and mumps immunity, vaccination does not ensure protection. Students should also wash their hands frequently, exercise caution in sharing utensils, drinking glasses, bottles, etc., and avoid close contact with those who are already ill. For those that are already infected, precautions should be exercised to prevent further spread of the disease.

While it is common sense how these practices stated above can transmit diseases, students should also be aware of how their use of public facilities can also possibly transmit diseases. At the Lyon center for example, accidentally smelling another student’s foul body odor may cause a student to cough on the machine he or she is using. Students scan make use of the sanitary wipes available in the Fitness rooms to leave machines and weights a bit more sanitary for other users.

These practices should not only be practiced when students think they or the people around them are sick. Especially since the symptoms of Mumps do not usually manifest until 12-25 days following exposure, students should always exercise standard santiary practices, in the case that they might spread the disease unknowingly.

While there are many restrooms throughout campus providing soap, water, and paper towels for sanitary needs, there are times when these items are not readily available. If such a situation is easily foreseeable, the USC pharmacy, and other drug stores, sell small hand sanitizer bottles, wipes, and other items that can be useful for preventing unncessary compromises to student health sanitation standards.

The symptoms of mumps include fever, headache, muschle aches, tiredness, loss of appetite, and swollen or tender salivary glands, according to the USC University Park Health Center. These symptoms are not exclusive to mumps, and many can result from something as common as sleep deprivation. Therefore, students should not ever assume they do not have an air-transmittable disease when experiencing such symptoms, and excercise proper precautions.

As with many other aspects of life, it is better to be proactive than reactive when it comes to protecting health. A healthy lifestyle in general can also help protect against Mumps. Getting a proper amount of rest and sufficient hydration can help both in recovery from Mumps and bolstering a stronger immune system to fight off an initial infection.

Students should adhere to the golden rule when it comes to health – doing for others what they would like being done for themselves. While it may take some extra effort to leave a place as it was found (or in a better condition, for extra credit!) these efforts, though often unseen, are appreciated and contribute to a more positive image of USC.

USC is interested in students’ health, and many resources exsit for students to learn about as well as address many of the illnesses and ailments that may befall them. The new Roger and Michel Dedeaux Engemann Student Health Center, commemorating a $15 million dollar gift, for example, is being built to better serve the large residential population of USC.

While USC works to provide its students with resources to protect student health, students too should do their part to contribute towards making USC a sanitary and healthy campus.

Rhetorically, I was quite amused. However, the key points I was trying to make were overlooked.

Alan Wong (“Banning smoking is progressive,” Sept. 27) makes a counterintuitive argument about the proposal to ban smoking.

One might have thought sticking up for individual rights would be the progressive side of the debate rather than banning things that some people personally don’t like.

First off, I didn’t say that this was about sticking up for individual rights. I argued quite the opposite:

So by supporting or not supporting a ban on smoking, regardless of position, one both supports and denies individuals rights, just of different groups of people. Rather than concentrating on what people deserve and don’t deserve (for this issue we will never agree on), USC should focus on what types of statements it can make through its actions.

Secondly, I acknowledged that “progressive” is not necessarily good, and that if a person does not want to support certain statements made by the university, then it would be logical to not support certain actions made by the university.

Students must ask themselves if they support the statements USC is trying to make, and work to support those statements through their actions, even if it means personal sacrifice. (Last sentence of my article)

For the record, I am not a fan of USC becoming a more “progressive” University, helping people by healthier and make “better” decisions. I advocate more of a libertarian approach to student affairs.

Would I agree with Mr. Wilcox’s satirical statements applying the same logic he perceived my article of conveying?

To a certain extent, yes. In fact, it could be taken further. If USC should be a progressive University and advocate progressive policies, why not ban textbooks? Not only are they expensive, they make students strain their eyes and can lead to back problems. Or, why not ban computers? Students need to go outside more and look for more “green” opportunities. Or ban students altogether, then USC wouldn’t need to hire DPS, and there would be 0 student injuries! These are not very solid examples, but the point is made. The principle behind any “progressive” action that involves implementing more controls is a in many ways contradictory.

Looking at the disclaimer at the bottom of the Opinion page in the DT:

Editorial Matter: Editorial opinions expressed in the Daily Trojan are those of the respective writers, and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Southern California, its faculty or student body.

I surely hope so, because otherwise I don’t know where USC is headed. Let’s change the word “writers” to “editors” though.

This is essentially my problem with the DT (and why you might not see me there next semester): writers are unable to respond to comments directly, held accountable for words they did not necessarily say, and graded/payed on how editors edit their articles.

I stick with this Newspaper because I want to make it better. Maybe one day I’ll see an opportunity to do that in a more effective way.

The actual content of the article here didn’t get butchered too bad… but the titles and quotes appended to it sure did!

I will start by stating my main point (a very moderate claim, a very weak one too:)

The use of technology should correspond to the nature of the content being taught.

I explicitly stated this to my editors.

What is it that got pushed as the main point?

1. (Front page) Opinion 4 : “The implementation of new technology here can be seen as an impediment to a stronger foundation”

2. (Title of article): Technology usage isn’t necessary for all classes

3. (Enlarged text on article): “USC should use technology only when it is appropriate and when it corresponds with the nature of the content being taught.

My responses to these decisions:

1. I did say this, but it is totally pulled out of context. Why would you refer to “here”, when we don’t even know what “here” is on the front page without reading the article?

2. I said that “technology” encompasses pretty much every tool we use. And I never said that any of it wasn’t necessary. So this pretty much summarizes nothing of what I said, while introducing a new claim which I do not support at all. I’m not pushing some Luddite revolution or something…

3. This quote wouldn’t piss me off so much if the word “only” were excluded —Once again, my main point was:

The use of technology should correspond to the nature of the content being taught.

Is the word “only” necessary for making this statement an ‘opinion’? Without that word is it a simple rhetorical statement? That seems to be the message I’m getting.

Here’s the original article, not a particularly strong or interesting one (I would write stronger and more interesting articles if more of my pitches went through):

———————-

The term “technology” is thrown around quite loosely in colloquial speech. In terms of “technology” being used in the classroom, we usually mean projectors, LCD screens, clickers, and other electronic devices. It should be remembered though, that nearly any tool we use can be considered as some form of technology. That includes books, pencils, blackboards, and other “traditional” classroom items.

Technology in the classroom reflects not only an evolution of how teaching can be conducted, but of the content that students are expected to know. Rather than serving an auxiliary function, technology in many instances determines what is being taught and what students are required to know. By permitting students to be exposed to more information and a faster rate than ever before, the use of modern technology in the classroom pushes students more than ever before, bypassing physical constraints imposed by previous tools employed. The use of technology should correspond to the nature of the content being taught. 

USC, a research university, definitely should make use of appropriate technologies to accomplish its mission of educating, and it certainly has in many instances. A computer science major obviously must acquire competence with computers, just as a biology major must acquire competence with many of the tools used in lab. USC has given students in technical fields, such as engineering and natural sciences, definite opportunities to exploit technology to succeed in these fields. The correspondence here between the technologies employed and material presented is clear in the instances of technology-driven areas of study.

But whether the use of technology is appropriate in less technically driven fields of study is less clearly seen. Take for instance, many humanities classes, in which the application of technology is less apparent. Should USC push to make teachers of these classes employ the flashy multimedia presentations that business students might use, or the clickers to count attendance and participation that many science classes use?

My simple answer is, ‘no’, and that USC professors should not be pushed in a direction that does not necessarily correspond to improvement. They should (and most likely will) push themselves in these directions if appropriate. But they should not be forced to do so (as they aren’t now). This is because the implementation of technology is inextricably linked to the presentation of course content and that in altering one, it may negatively alter the other. The process of how information is presented is often as important as the actual information presented itself.

A delicate philosophical argument, for example, can perhaps be more easily explained with flashy diagrams and animations. A delicate philosophical argument too, however, can be cheapened by answers being more easily “handed” to students, as opposed to being presented in a manner more similar to how they were originally. Process of information acquisition can be negatively altered by the implementation of new technologies.

Similarly, in a language class, students given the option to type documents may more easily produce texts of greater length and more accurate spelling or character reproduction by typing, but may fail to acquire a more solid grasp of the written language gained through hand-writing. The implementation of new technology here can be seen as an impediment to a stronger foundation.

All areas of study are technology-driven to a certain degree, but forward is not as clear a direction as employing newer and more technology. The nature of the content being taught should correspond to the use of technology, whether this is technology guiding what is being taught (as the case in many technical fields), or what is being taught driving the technology’s use. In the case that a particular process is an integral part of learning, technology should not be employed in a way so as to disturb this process, unless of course, that is the intention and experimentation is being done.

In this century, students have wider access to information than ever before, and increasingly advanced technology allows professors to require more and more of students. USC should definitely urge students to take advantage of technology to exploit opportunities that are so far exclusive to the past few decades. The process of learning, though, should not be forgotten as a valuable learning experience in of itself, and technology’s effects on this experience should be considered when its use is encouraged. And while the implementation of different technologies may greatly alter how learning is done and what is possible to learn, individual student intelligence and willpower still are the primary determining factors in academic success in a university like USC.

This article was actually relatively unprocessed (not to say it wasn’t heavily edited). Still, major points have been edited out. And, as usual, comments address these issues aspects that have been edited.

Consider:

I”m not sure being identified as a “progressive university environment” is good for USC. This institution’s reputation is one of entrepreneurialism, self-reliance and trend-setting independence from the common herd.

-diane

I totally agree. Being “progressive” isn’t necessarily good. If USC wants to appear progressive though, by supporting LGBT and all sorts of other programs, however, then a possible smoking ban can surely support this agenda.

I think I summarized this well enough in the last sentence of my original draft:

Students must ask themselves if they support the statements USC is trying to make, and work to support those statements through their actions, even if it means personal sacrifice.

That is, if students want to support the notion of being “progressive”, supporting a smoking ban would. However, if students don’t support that statement that USC is trying to make, the reasons for supporting the smoking ban fall beyond that argument.

Another particularly interesting anonymous comment:

Grow up, people. Take some responsibility for yourselves, and don’t rely on a “progressive” university environment to do it for you.

I agree with this that we should not blame an institution for not creating change we want. This doesn’t mean, however, that the University is not a vehicle through which change can happen and statements can be made. Taking responsibility for yourself is never a bad idea though.

All in all, I was fairly pleased that most of the arguments were kept intact in this piece. However, there were a few points that were not:

1. As I said in the article, the main point is not regarding smoking itself, but about the statements the University is making. It was pointed out that being “progressive” is not necessarily a good thing, and I agree.

2. The “conditionals” of my argument were removed — that is, I don’t think that every student should support the smoking ban. I don’t think I ever explicitly say that I support a smoking ban in my original draft (I don’t support a complete smoking ban, by the way)

The last paragraph provides a fairly good summary of my main issues:

While on campus at USC, students and their actions reflect not just themselves, but their school as well. We must not only ask what our school can do for us, but what we can do for our school. The support of such a ban or restrictions by smokers and non-smokers alike would magnify USC’s prestige as a progressive university. Personal sacrifice for common interest is oftentimes bothersome, like dismounting a bike or a long board at a cross walk, or allowing oneself to be searched at a security checkpoint. Students must ask themselves if they support the statements USC is trying to make, and work to support those statements through their actions, even if it means personal sacrifice.

Here is the original draft:

Recently, there has been debate over a possible smoking ban on campus. The implementation of such a ban has the potential to raise USC’s prestige as a progressive university that is committed not just to debate and discussion, but to action and implementation. USC, as a private university, has greater jurisdiction over such matters than a public school, and can be seen as a potential role model for reforms and improvements that can occur throughout California’s higher education system.

The issue being addressed is not necessarily smoking itself. Effectively, smoking bans are already in place throughout campus – in buildings, for example. Extending these bans would not be introducing any sort of new idea. Logistically speaking, the implementation of the ban would not be overly difficult to enforce. The implementation of a complete smoking ban, or extending the smoking bans already in place would entail more symbolic value than practical consequence. The issue at hand is stating what USC stands for.

By joining more than 530 other colleges, USC would recognize itself not just as a University that says it is in interest of its students’ health and welfare, but a University that truly acts on that notion. USC would join schools such as Stanford University Medical School and UCSF in taking tangible steps to promote healthy lifestyles.

It is true that by implementing a smoking ban, USC would be challenging some of the rights that smokers claim to have.  Non-smokers, however, could make equivalent claims regarding their rights to airspace. So by supporting or not supporting a ban on smoking, regardless of position, one both supports and denies individuals rights, just of different groups of people. Rather than concentrating on what people deserve and don’t deserve (for this issue we will never agree on), USC should focus on what types of statements it can make through its actions.

Banning smoking, regardless of which individuals’ “rights” it supports or violates, is clearly a step towards a healthier campus. It is unnecessary to name the negative health consequences of first-hand smoking, which have been thoroughly studied. And while the negative effects of second-hand smoking are of debatable consequence, nobody will argue that second hand smoking is good-for those that experience it. It should be taken as a point of agreement that smoking is bad for the health, regardless if people should be permitted to do it or not.

Banning smoking on campus need not mean banning of smoking everywhere, nor forbidding the sale of tobacco in areas surrounding campus. As previously stated, the issue as I see it is not about smoking itself, but about the messages USC is sending through its actions. Just as USC sends a message of protecting student safety by having DPS constantly patrolling campus, USC can send a message of promoting healthy lifestyles by banning smoking.

These measures may not always be convenient and can sometimes be annoying. But they clearly show effort. USC’s physical campus is the first impression many prospective students and other visitors will have of USC. Tangible efforts that show the University’s dedication to healthy and safe students cannot reflect poorly on USC’s intentions.

While on campus at USC, students and their actions reflect not just themselves, but their school as well. We must not only ask what our school can do for us, but what we can do for our school. The support of such a ban or restrictions by smokers and non-smokers alike would magnify USC’s prestige as a progressive university. Personal sacrifice for common interest is oftentimes bothersome, like dismounting a bike or a long board at a cross walk, or allowing oneself to be searched at a security checkpoint. Students must ask themselves if they support the statements USC is trying to make, and work to support those statements through their actions, even if it means personal sacrifice.

This article I found surprisingly reasonably edited. There are just a few key elements eliminated:

I directly accuse USC of fostering a sense of entitlement among students. This statement is eliminated to suggest that a sense of entitlement evolves from students themselves, rather than to say that USC inculcates this sense:

I’m not advocating teaching students to “expect the worst” coming into USC, or even to “expect the worst, and hope for the best”. The main issue I have with a large part of the image of “student culture” presented during these events is the sentiment of entitlement it fosters.

Also, the scope of the article is significantly narrowed. This is a very reasonable edit, but for the sake of expressing my opinion, I will point it out here:

It could be as simple as pedestrians expecting bikers to yield, or for long boarders expecting the general public to know that it isn’t always easy to slow down without brakes. Or it could be as complicated as discussions about human rights, believing that simply by being human there are certain things that all people deserve. Regardless, sentiments of entitlement born from expectation all suggest a similar principle: I deserve something, and existing institutions should conspire to provide me what I deserve.

And finally, I’ll point out that my conclusion,

Privileged enough to attend USC, students should be sure to remember that what they are given is not their right, but a fortunate culmination of a number of events. Whether it be first by another’s hard work, and then their own, or the grace of a higher being, the privileges of being a member of the Trojan family are not to be taken for granted.

was reduced to a single sentence:

The privileges of being a member of the Trojan Family are not to be taken for granted.

This is once again, a narrowing of scope, which probably encompasses good journalistic practice (which I know next to nothing about). Also curious to note, is the elimination of any reference to the possibility of a higher being and implications that we are not in USC simply because of our own efforts.

———————————————-

It has been said that expectation is the root of all heartache¹. While this may not be the most optimistic way to greet incoming students to USC, taking such a statement to heart could help alleviate many problems Freshman and incoming transfers face on campus by proactive, rather than reactive, measures.

I’m not advocating teaching students to “expect the worst” coming into USC, or even to “expect the worst, and hope for the best”. The main issue I have with a large part of the image of “student culture” presented during these events is the sentiment of entitlement it fosters.

Attached to admission to USC is a sense of pride. As explored earlier in another Daily Trojan article, USC admissions are not getting easier. And because of that, admission to USC is more often than not the result of hard work, tenacity, courage, etc. It seems reasonable enough that doing a good job should be rewarded: a lot of time put into studying should produce good grades, conditioning hard should produce better athletes. Expectation becomes an especially dangerous liability though, when it comes not from the result of an action, but simply from a state of being. This is when expectation starts to lead to sentiments of entitlement.

It could be as simple as pedestrians expecting bikers to yield, or for long boarders expecting the general public to know that it isn’t always easy to slow down without brakes. Or it could be as complicated as discussions about human rights, believing that simply by being human there are certain things that all people deserve. Regardless, sentiments of entitlement born from expectation all suggest a similar principle: I deserve something, and existing institutions should conspire to provide me what I deserve.

Orientation and Welcome Week both reinforce the idea of the “Trojan Family”. Simply and accurately put by Gorby Shih, and international student at USC, “ ‘Trojan Family’ came up a lot.”

And for good reason too. USC alumni are a formidable force. And the last thing a welcome-type session would want to do would be to alienate certain people or foster the formation of cliques. But placing such an emphasis on this aspect of identity isn’t particularly helpful for students that haven’t yet graduated. Emphasizing the concept of “family”, on one hand suggests a comforting sense of security, and opportunity for even a “fallen” student to return to loving arms, like the story of the prodigal son in the New Testament. On the other hand though, it allows some students to believe that after having conquered the hill of undergraduate admission, they are now licensed to be lazy under the net of “family support”. While the concept of Trojan family is fantastic for students who have all endured similar struggles together, it also contributes to the list of “deserved benefits” under entitlement, that need not be earned by hard work, or the good grace of another, simply gained by self-definition.

Just as the concept of “Trojan Family” can be a double-edged sword for incoming students, a support system to embrace, or a crutch to fall on even when not needed, USC’s openness and acceptance likewise can lead many students down treacherous paths. While this may seem like a good, non-offending option to foster good relationships, emphasizing acceptance actually has the potential to corrode the morals and values students have previously found, for better or for worse.

Take for example USC’s attitude towards sex. Anybody who has lived in a dorm is familiar with the “condom bucket”, or, in some cases, the ambiguous “candy or condom bucket”. USC recognizes that people are going to have sex in the dorms, regardless of the values held by Trustees, Alumni, and others. So rather than kick the bucket, we fill the bucket, knowing that an issue, like STDs, can’t be combated by pretending it doesn’t exist. But by continuing to fill the condom buckets, many students feel that they deserve these contraceptives, and feel short-changed when the bucket isn’t filled in a timely manner.

While I commend the students and staff that participate in Orientation programs and Welcome Week programs for their active dedication to their school, and recognize their talent and character, I cannot help but think that the images of USC we present to incoming students do little to nothing to combat the label “University of Spoiled Children” given to us by our not-so-nice UC rivals. Now of course, this can also be interpreted as a great compliment, and we can just as easily call those labeling us “jealous” or “angry”. But the connotation of “spoiled”, is often born not from envy of nice facilities, but from the attitudes of entitlement previously discussed, that many students come to display.

Privileged enough to attend USC, students should be sure to remember that what they are given is not their right, but a fortunate culmination of a number of events. Whether it be first by another’s hard work, and then their own, or the grace of a higher being, the privileges of being a member of the Trojan family are not to be taken for granted.

1Commonly cited as a quote by Shakespeare, but of unknown source.

Online, a very good assessment of the officially published article was made by Don Harmon, of which I nearly entirely agree with:

Mr. Alan Wong writes a good and generally factual letter on use of unmanned aerial vehicles, (UAVs) (he calls them “drones”) but makes a common mistake. He suggests that the existence of an effective weapon system like the UAV might cause the US President to commit our forces to unnecessary combat actions. That is not the case. The President, for a variety of tactical, strategic or political reasons, might commit our forces to combat. Sometimes these reasons have appeared hare-brained or even vicious to some.

In no case; however, has a President committed US forces merely because a weapons system like the UAV was efficient and available. He may dictate to the military that it limit itself to a specific weapon system, e.g., aircraft to support Libyan rebels, but he has not initiated conflicts simply because he had a certain weapons system.

And where “humaneness” of weapons is concerned, US military doctrine and practice have always been to avoid destroying civilian life and property unnecessarily, although this is subject to military requirements. The “humaneness” of UAV’s lies in the fact that they are very precise, guided systems and create a minimum of collateral damage. More important, they avoid subjecting US service personnel to becoming wounded and killed during strikes against the enemy. It is the military mission, then humaneness to Americans, that counts most in warlike actions, where evaluating the effects of weapons on the enemy

I agree with everything he says regarding the increased humaneness of UAVs due to precision, and am glad that he clarifies my terminology of the term “drone”.

I used the term “drone” to distinguish a certain subclass of UAVs. Fully automatic UAVs (though they do not exist yet to my knowledge) differ from “drones” in that “drones” must be remotely controlled.

Rereading my own draft and the published draft, I can see instances in which I seem to be implying that the existence of drone warfare is used as a reason for more combat engagements and/or missions.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this. I will offer a metaphor (though an overly-simplified) one to try to explain. Suppose you are playing a game of chess and have a material advantage. There are (typically) more options with more pieces.

This means that drones would not be the reason to initiate the fighting, but the existence of drones could be the reason a mission could possibly be done. This is the same as saying, “If the United States had no army, the United States absolutely should not go to war. However, if the United States does have an army, then going to war is an option”.

I understand that this explanation given above is an over-simplification of a very complex issue.

Here I will explicitly state the main point of my draft, as I intended:

Drone warfare represents a natural development to fight more effectively, and will continue to be used since it addresses a necessary task. But that is not to say that the government should encourage war to be taken more lightly, as viewing an event through a screen as opposed to in person so often as the natural effect of doing. Rather, warfare ought to be at least a little bit traumatizing. If it is not, human life is being taken far too lightly.

In other words, the tool does not determine the principle behind what is being done. Just because a more “humane” technology is being used, that doesn’t take weight off the fact that combat is being engaged in and lives are being lost. Mr. Harmon does an excellent job clarifying that the weapon has not been used as a motive for the action. My opinion, though, is a warning that we must not let this become the case, and as warfare becomes more mechanized, we must not forget that it is still human lives that are being dealt with.

—————————-

Below is my originally submitted draft:

Recently, a US drone crashed over Pakistan. This was the second such crash in Pakistan this month. While Taliban leaders claim they shot down the aircraft, other sources report the aircraft crashed due to technical problems.

Drones, as used by US in military operations belong to a class of machines referred to as UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). The term “drone” refers to such an aircraft that is remotely controlled. Drones are frequently used on reconnaissance and attack missions. Pilots of drones are often thousands of miles away, controlling their aircraft in a manner akin to playing a video game.

The deployment of unmanned aircraft is tactically advantageous, and the US, having the power to use such technology, ought to, if it ought to be fighting at all. In addition to advantages due to their smaller sizes, drones being unmanned, keep the lives of many US military personnel further from the dangers of face-to-face combat with the use of such technology.

But such separation also attributes a very inhuman character to warfare. The moral and psychological implications of these developments challenge us to question just how “personal” warfare should be, if it must be conducted at all. By dehumanizing warfare, drones epitomize how even the most direct encounters between humans are being further and further separated in the 21^st century.

Ironically, it is in efforts to make warfare more humane that some of the worst forms of dehumanization can occur. True, drone warfare saves many Americans from physical danger. But the danger of the continued implementation of drones and other remote forms of combat is the dehumanization that accompanies it. Being thousands of miles from the scene of actual combat makes the effects of combat seem further too. Just as viewing a clip of a bombing does not describe what happened nearly as much as actually being at the site, pilots of drones watch warfare from afar.

It can be argued that drone warfare is a step towards making warfare more humane. It is true that in 21^st century warfare, fewer lives have been lost than in previous wars and eras. By further reducing the amount of US military personnel on the battlefield, the implementation of drone warfare even further decreases the potential for lost lives on this side. But cleaner bullets, more accurate explosives, and more mechanized warfare do not necessarily constitute more “humane” warfare.

Standards of how humane warfare ought to be have long been a topic for international discussion. Treaties such as the Hague Conventions and the Geneva protocol have attempted to address some of the most horrendous forms of warfare seen in past wars. For example, biological and chemical weapons are prohibited by the Geneva protocol. These agreements and discussions regarding just how humane warfare should be suggest that although war is horrifying, it should only be a horrifying to a certain extent. This sentiment has been reflected especially recently in the US in regards to post-trauma stress syndrome, of which much research, efforts, and funds have been invested in.

But, improvements in making warfare more “humane” should not serve as justifications for conducting it more frequently or unnecessarily. Though reducing life loss and making warfare as least traumatizing as possible is excellent, it must not serve as an impetus to belittle the significance of war and loss of life in general. Conducting combat through an LCD screen should not make combat any less significant than done personally.

That being said, the relative humanity of a method of killing is not so often the matter worth discussing as the necessity of the killing in the first place. This concept applies to drone warfare, in that if the fighting itself is necessary, and drone warfare presents itself as an advantageous tool, it ought to be implemented. But drone warfare, detaching the US more and more from more “personal” encounters should not encourage increased combat engagements.

Drone warfare is likely to continue so long as the United States retains the funds necessary to continue its development, because regardless if it is necessary or not, warfare has been around as long as the human race itself, and will continue until we either destroy ourselves or are destroyed. Drone warfare represents a natural development to fight more effectively, and will continue to be used since it addresses a necessary task. But that is not to say that the government should encourage war to be taken more lightly, as viewing an event through a screen as opposed to in person so often as the natural effect of doing. Rather, warfare ought to be at least a little bit traumatizing. If it is not, human life is being taken far too lightly.

Posted below is the second draft I submitted to the Daily Trojan for the article linked.

My main point is not that the term “interfaith” overlooks key religions, but that it is important to determine what a “faith” is if an organization is to distinguish itself as “interfaith”.

What is the difference between an “interfaith” organization and a secular organization?

And I don’t ask this question necessarily as rhetorical. If you do have an answer, please share.

The linked article already has one comment:

All I read was the ramblings of a pompous, pretentious twat. He make a valid point, but the argument – or rather lack thereof – was pathetic. Someone please re-teach this guy how to write. Thanks.

and rather than being offended, I am saddened by it. I agree that discussing terminology may come off as “pretentious” and that asserting any opinion strongly can also be regarded as such.

Perhaps my own last paragraph can help clarify my intentions:

If USC is a comprised of truth-seeking students, I would say that USC is an “inter-faith organization,” in the broad sense that we’re all in the same boat of the human condition. Whether the method is through prayer, fasting, scientific inquiry, reading, or writing, I urge USC students to “Fight On!” in pursuit of truth, and recognize our campus as an “inter-faith” community of fellow truth-seekers.

Please feel free to comment, reply, etc.

———————————————————

USC, partially in response to Barack Obama’s challenge issued in March to bridge religious divides and build understanding while giving university students a chance to participate in community service projects, has hosted an interfaith memorial, commemorating the tenth anniversary of September 11^th, now known as “Patriot Day”. 

Calling the event “interfaith” though, doesn’t really say anything more than would naming the initiative as secular. By choosing to try to encompass all faiths, the term “interfaith” looses any distinction between any people. Or, the term asks for the distinction between “religious” and “non-religious” people. Either way, its use causes people to either call every way of life a “faith”, in which the term does not carry any more meaning than not denoting a religious connotation at all, or, its use suggests that people should make judgments regarding what is and isn’t a religion. This doesn’t seem to be consistent with the principles of interfaith organizations.

USC is trying to promote understanding among diverse groups of people. It is trying to promote seeking the truth and searching for understanding. This is an admirable goal, and certainly one that I support. This is also the unifying force among those who consider themselves religious.

But it can also be said that this is the unifying goal of any type of secular endeavor taken seriously. Interfaith organizations that fail to make a distinction upon what describes a “faith”, in an effort to be all-encompassing or politically correct, really don’t say anything beyond wanting to include everyone, because everybody believes in something.

 People who consider themselves “religious”, philosophers, scientists, etc. – a very broad range of people can all claim solidarity in that they are seeking to understand the true nature of the universe. This broad definition though, challenges the colloquially used definition for what a “religion” even is, as doing math homework is as much (if not more) of a search for truth than visiting a holy site or studying a sacred text. Perhaps that is why this more “atheist encompassing” answer is not more widely regarded. 

That being said, the term “religious” can either encompass everybody, or must be distinguished, with criteria such as “the belief in a god”, or something similar. Of course, this would be horribly politically incorrect. The safer option then would be to abandon such terms outright.

Rather than creating organizations vaguely named as “interfaith”, I believe organizations that are going to distinguish themselves as religious should have something easily nameable to unite behind. Christians, Muslims, and Jews, for example can create an organization recognizing a shared belief in a single God described in some shared texts.

This would differ from efforts to look at perceived shared values among a diverse range of religions. Because often times to look at these shared values is to overlook the differing underlying principles behind each faith. If USC wishes to promote understanding among people of different faiths, it should not do so by asking students to only look at the surface, legalistic aspects of different religions, or by pushing ideology contrary to the principles of many of the faiths it is trying to recognize by insinuating that all religions are equal.

It is clear that interfaith initiatives seek to recognize and discuss diversity. But, it is also clear that these same initiatives seek to promote unity. By urging both unity and diversity, USC has a very difficult problem in regards to religious programming.

Unity, as traditionally expressed in individual religions, is only possible with exclusivity. For example, Muslims at the Kaaba in Mecca dress identically to emphasize solidarity. Most sects of Christianity permit only those who have declared themselves as Christians to partake in the Holy Communion. Varna in Hinduism divides society into distinct classes, each excluding the others. Identification involves both negation and affirmation – one must say what one is and what one isn’t. For a group of people to say they agree to support something is also for them to agree to oppose the negation of that something.

Calling a group “interfaith”, considering the elusive definition of what it means to be “religious” (adapting my “truth-seeking” suggestion, those typically regarded as “atheists” then would be as religious as anyone else), then, does not really say anything at all.  Calling a group “interfaith” either excludes those that aren’t part of a “faith”, or suggests that everybody is part of a “faith” of some sort. Of course, saying that “interfaith” encompasses everyone would make such a group’s distinction as “religious” rather meaningless.

That being said, I believe the term “interfaith” does not have much meaning, and its use should not be promoted. Perhaps the best way to promote community service and increased solidarity among humans in general, is to urge each individual religious group to prove that it is closest to the truth by its actions.

If USC is a comprised of truth-seeking students, I would say that USC is an “inter-faith organization,” in the broad sense that we’re all in the same boat of the human condition. Whether the method is through prayer, fasting, scientific inquiry, reading, or writing, I urge USC students to “Fight On!” in pursuit of truth, and recognize our campus as an “inter-faith” community of fellow truth-seekers.