4-Tuesday, January 30, 2007 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 0 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 413 E. Huron St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 tothedaily@umich.edu DONN M. FRESARD EDITOR IN CHIEF EMILY BEAM CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS I'm 114. It's enough now. I'll go whenever the man upstairs calls me home." - Emma Faust Tillman, who at 114 was the world's oldest person before passing away Sunday evening, as reported yesterday by nytimes.com. WYMAN KHUU JEFFREY BLOOMER MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. A failed evaluation Professors cannot be judged by research alone t's often said that professors can be neatly divided into two categories - those who are esteemed in their field, and those who are esteemed in the classroom. University professors did not fare well in a recent study conducted by Academic Analysts, a research coalition that ranks professors solely based on publishing record. The University's disdain for these external ranking systems is understandable; we all know publishing record is no indication of teaching skills. But the problem is larger than that, centering on the lack of student involvement in demanding and maintaining a uvR..,, #.COU NIR> , culture of teaching excellence. The downfall of student-initiated course evaluations may be that professors are often placed at the mercy of apathetic students. Sadly, few students will heap praise on an exceptional professor; most are content simply to darken circles and dart. This lax attitude is a shame, considering the pretty penny students pay for tuition. It works to the disadvantage of students and faculty, both of whom seek to ameliorate the Uni- versity's academic climate and raise the bar to offer strong classes in all departments. The advent of yet another rankings index provides the University with an opportunity to critically re-evaluate how it rates professors. Every student who has been subjected to the hour-and-a-half- long monologues of some internationally renowned scholar who cannot impart a shred of coherent information would agree that rankings based on publishing record and conducted by outside analysts hold no real importance. Teaching ability and the capacity to publish prolifically don't have to go hand-in-hand. Any system of evaluating professors must do so accurately and mean- ingfully so as to guide future students. The system that is currently in place - scantron questionnaires that assume an entire semester can be summed into dark- ened bubbles labeled 1 through 5 - does little to foster a culture that encourages students to voice critical feedback about Look beyond the hype their professors' performance. Many of the current course reviews seem to disappear into the void of administrative bureaucra- cy, while the students with real complaints turn instead to external websites like www. ratemyprofessor.com. Anidealsolutionwould be anindependent review agency on campus that systemati- cally creates, updates and reviews student evaluations of professors and courses. The results would appear in a comprehensive website that details not only the nature and effectiveness of a given instructor's teach- ing style but also the difficulty of home- work and exams. But while the University can develop a more authoritative, holistic system of evaluation, no system can work without students doing their part. By filling out evaluations thoroughly and accurately students must take up the burden of devel- oping a more meaningful professor review process. Student involvement should not be mandated from above - students shouldn't have to be compelled to serve their own educational interests. An internally monitored and student-led professor-review system would enable the University to shrug off the damning influ- ence of quantitative rating systems once and for all, and would fulfill two impor- tant functions - developing a remarkable research faculty and fostering quality edu- cation for students. logans flying, agendas ambitious, diatribes aplenty - optimism is in the air. Put that together with pretenders declaring (and some- how keeping a straight face), potentials "exploring," heavyweights denying and losers crying. Stir and simmer. Is there anything like the sweet smell of the pre- pre- pre-election season? Honestly, I'd rather not talk about this right now. Washington IMRAN is abuzz with the doingsoftheDem- SYED ocratic Congress, but while Congress promises action on global warming, fumbles minimum wage and panders on Iraq almost as much as President Bush, the race for '08 is already a go. There's really no reason to mention all the hopefuls; I think it's safe to say we aren't looking at a Tom Tancredo or Mike Huckabee presidency anytime soon. And while the Republican race between Arizona Sen. John McCain, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani will be tough, there's no fire on the Republican side yet, and won't be until (God help us) Newt Gingrich jumps in. For now it's all about the Democrats, mostly because with Bush in trouble, Republicans are happy to avoid the first glance of scrutiny as long as possible (hey, they know they've got the money to make up for lost time). But should a conscientious liberal really buy into the players of hype on the Democratic side? For the love of our principles, strategies and chances at taking back the White House - certainly not. Don't get me wrong: I'm a Barack Obama fan and could even be talked into admitting that Hillary Clinton has accomplished things in her life. But these two masters of razzmatazz would spell disaster for Democratic momen- tum if nominated. We could talk about Hillary's pan- dering and Obama's inexperience. After all, Hillary did work for the decidedly' Republican Barry Goldwater cam- paign in'64 and the Democratic George McGovern campaign in '72. Talk about a flip-flop. Just four years ago, while other contenders were on the national stage as major players in debates over recession and the war against terror- ism, Obama was chilling in the Illinois State Senate deciding on things like whether or not summer kindergar- ten programs could begin two months before the school year. (Though he co- sponsored the bill, Obama decided he wasn't sure and refrained from voting.) Those are relevant issues, but let's also mention the elephant in the room that it's socially in vogue to pretend not to notice. Hillary is a woman. Obama is a black man. No major party has ever nominated either. But of course no one should jump off the Hillary/Obama campaign bus for that reason. And just as important, no one should jump on for that reason either. Obama is a prep-school/Harvard product. Hillary chose Yale, and as a former first lady is about as establish- ment as it gets, so let's cut the talk of sticking it to the man by going with these candidates. At least one of them would makea fine president (I'm all for a female president, I'd just prefer she wasn't the former president of the Wes- leyan College Republicans). Prevailing social prejudices though, will ensure thatneither canwin. (Call me whenyou see a single state of the old Confederacy going to a black man, as it practically must for a Democratic victory.) Hillary and Obama are the flash, but look to the other two potential Demo- cratic contendersifyouwant substance. After being robbed of the presidency and falling out of favor with party elites and infantry alike, former Vice Presi- dent Al Gore has dedicated his time away from office into what is perhaps the progressive cause of our lifetime. Gore isn't simply out there running his mouth on global warming to gain votes; this is an issue he understands and has dedicated his life to. With the environmentin peril -pick a scientist, any scientist - Earth itself must smile at the thought of a Gore presidency. Also, being an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq from the begin- ning, while still boasting the political poise and awareness of a House, Senate and Executive branch veteran, Gore is perhaps the most qualified, dare I say, ripe, candidate of all. Similar to Gore is former North Caro- lina Sen. John Edwards, who has also spent his time out of office championing Remember Gore and Edwards come 2008. causes simply because he cares. He isthe only candidate comfortable with talking about America's continued affliction of povertyandthestateoftheworkingpoor. Although he is the son of a mill worker from the fields of Carolina, Edwards shares more than just looks with Bobby Kennedy and follows in a line that leads back to the eminent Henry Clay - those who put the cause before the-office. I'm the last guy who wants to cham- pion the rich white guy in a race full of potentiallyqualifiedminorities(besides Hillary and Obama, Romney is a Mor- mon and New Mexico Gov. Bill Rich- ardson is Hispanic). But the fact is that both Gore and Edwards are activists who care about the issues. Obama and Hillary may also care, but would theyif they didn't have to? We know Gore and Edwards would, and we're long over- due for a president of that creed. Now there's a break with the estab- lishment. Imran Syed is an associate editorial page editor. He can be reached at galad@umich.edu JEFFREY HARDING. Pfizer: From the inside I have worked at Pfizer for almost two years. I'm technically not an intern because I can work as long as Iam in school. officially, Iam a student assistant. While admittedly shorter than other student assistants, my two-year stint has allowed me to become integrated into the Pfizer commu- nity. With the recent closing of the Ann Arbor site, there has been a lot of discussion about the "real lesson of Pfizer" and the economic effects on Michigan's fragile economy. But I think the more important discussion is about those who have lost their jobs. Pfizer is the epitome of the corporate world, where business means makinga product that can turn a profit. Those I have met and those I have worked withthough, are anythingbutcorporate. Most of them care more about their family and friends than stock prices and corporate earnings. They are skilled and intelligent scientists, but family and friends are always most important to them. One of my supervisors has two daughters; another has two with a third child on the way. She recently took time off to take her family to Walt Disney World and visit her brother. They have always been incredibly kind and generous bosses. They make cakes for my birthday, take me to lunch for Christmas and give me time off when I need it. They are patient when I make mistakes but quick to praise when I do well. one of my fellow employees calls me into his office merely to talk about my schooling and plac- es I'd like to travel. Another stops me in the hall regularly to talk about future plans and tells me everyday that he knows I'll succeed. There are a thousand othersjustlike themwho are everything we should hope to be as adults -smart,hard work- ers with big hearts. I cannot speak for everyone on the corporate ladder, but I certainly will speak for those I work with. It saddens me deeply to know every single one of them has justbeen fired. When you read about 2,100 people losing their jobs, it doesn't really mean anything: It's just a faceless number. I wasn't at work the day of the announcement, and I found out about the closing inThe MichiganDaily,likemanyothers. Eventhen I couldn't comprehend the profundity ofwhathad happened. All the people I had ever known and met through Pfizer were going to lose their jobs. It felt so distant to read about it in print. It hit me that Thursday when I went to work., Normally animated with lab experiments and data analysis, all work had essentially come to a halt. People everywhere were in groups talking about what to do next. Most of the tears hadbeen shed days earlier and light laughter had emerged by now. When I walked in, one department head jokingly said to me "Well, Jeff, it looks like you may be the last one here!" They weren't joyful about losing their jobs, but they were dealing with things as best they could. Thursday was a very profound experience for me. As I walked through the cafeteria, the num- ber 2,100 began to suffocate me. Every face I saw was the face of someone who had just lost a job - director heads, lab workers, security guards, cooks, everyone. When people lose their careers, it's a life-changing event. And it had just hap- pened to everyone, to every face I saw as I shift- ed through that cafeteria. Everyone seemed so human to me then. The biggest concern for them is what to do next, what to do to support their families. One man I know has five kids, and he is the only one who works in his household. Many will have to relocate and tear their kids out of school. Oth- ers will sell their homes and cars. Some might go back to school. Everyone will be searching for work. I can lose my position, and let's be honest, my life won't be drastically affected. But these are people with families who depend on their incomes. So every day I ask myself the same question they ask themselves: What will they do next? Jeffrey Harding is an LSA junior. SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU Friedman not alone in his intellectual dishonesty TO THE DAILY: I appreciate Christopher Zbrozek's acknowledgement of Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman's legacy and fight for individual liberty and limited government (Happy Milton Friedman Day!, 01/29/2007). However, it's hypocritical of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman to speak of Friedman's "intellectual dishonesty" because Krugman's own statistical methods have been questioned on several occasions. In 2005, Daniel Okrent, then public editor of the Times, accused Krugman of having "the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fash- ion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to sub- stantive assaults." The Economist has called Krugman's economics "stretched" and criticized his staunch parti- san slant and his tendency to select information that (at risk of sounding like a clich6 neoconservative) advances his liberal agenda. If Krugman is looking for "intellectual dishonesty," perhaps he should look no further than the mirror. It takes one to know one. Jonny Slemrod LSAfreshman Daily grossly misrepresents Scholars for 9 11 Truth event TO THE DAILY: I read with interest your report on the University's Sept. 11 truth event on Sunday (Conspiracy theorists stir controversy at Union, 01/29/2007), and I must say that I'm stunned. I can only assume that the members of Young Americans for Freedom ghost-authored the entire article. Maybe this would explain why the reporter seems to have left the event at the same time as the YAFers. No honest reporter could have gotten so many things wrong and so meticulously defamed those who put together the event. That YAF's dozen goons got more ink than our 500 attendees was bad enough. But the article also completely misattributed Ke out of context) to to mention is a r( tor of the top-sec and president of Studies. What'sn the three speake Not one. They m official governm grossly dishonest BiB Rosemurgy Engineeringjunior vin Ryan's statements (which were taken Robert Bowman (who the article failed etired Air Force colonel), former direc- ret "Star Wars" missile defense program f the Institute for Space and Security most dishonest, however, is that none of ers presented any conspiracy theories. erely presented facts that destroyed the ent conspiracy theory. All in all, it was a piece that should be retracted. Columnist aptly acknowledges racist roots ofpotprohibition TO THE DAILY: Jared Goldberg is to be commended for raising aware- ness about the racist roots of marijuana prohibition (The war on common sense, 01/23/2007). If health effects instead of cultural norms determined drug laws, mari- juana would be legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause death from overdose, and neither does it share the addictive properties of nicotine. Mari- juana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells for abusers are as inappropriate as health interventions are ineffec- tive as deterrents. The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican migration during the early 1900s, despite oppo- sition from the American Medical Association. White Americans did not even begin to smoke pot until a soon- to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began fund- ing "reefer-madness" propaganda. By raiding voter-approved medical marijuana provid- ers in California, the very same U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that claims illicit drug use funds terror- ism is forcing cancer and AIDS patients into the hands of street dealers. Robert Sharpe The letter writer is a policy analystfor Common Sense for Drug Policy ERIN RUSSELL MOM, 00 1 WASH MY THAT'S EASY, O80 JA SAYS, 'I THINK, THf8OfE HAOT'wAT8 TSopto NWHN 0Y05I S AY I'M 0ANSCPOUS.* cE c