NPR's Battle Plan

As a once-avid listener of all things NPR, this opinion piece from the Huffington Post piqued my interest. In it, author Eric Boehlert criticizes Nation Public Radio’s reaction to conservative activist James O’Keefe’s recent sting, which focused on comments made by NPR’s now freshly resigned ex-“head of fundraising,” Ron Schiller. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that “a video was posted online of [Schiller] making disparaging remarks about Republicans and tea-party supporters to people posing as members of a fictitious Muslim group” (Full Article). James O’Keefe was later discovered to have made two distinct versions of the video – one edited and one unedited. The edited version allegedly accredited certain comments to Schiller when he had, in fact, been paraphrasing comments made to him by “prominent Republicans.”

In the opinion piece linked above, Boehler calls NPR’s submissive reaction cowardly and ineffective, citing the apparently misleading nature of O’Keefe’s original edited video as a point over which NPR could have raised significant issue. Boehler states, “if NPR leaders knew immediately when the O'Keefe story broke that the tapes he was peddling had been "heavily edited" to discredit NPR, then NPR did a very good job keeping that information to themselves,” adding that “You have to fight back when bullies attack.”

Though Boehler’s opinion is stated without total awareness of the situation (it seems awfully brazen of him to assume NPR made a “misstep” when in fact non-action was likely the best looking option at the time for a supposedly non-partisan organization to take against an attack by conservatives (hindsight is always 20/20, etc.)), I am inclined to agree somewhat with his position. Though I’m sure NPR was attempting to keep their image as squeaky-clean as possible, perhaps contesting the edited video more publicly would have helped them save face in the long run.  As it stands, however, Boehler is likely correct in predicting that NPR will play target to more and more partisan attacks in the future, and would do well to establish a firm defense when said attacks arrive.

Fresh Mishaps in America's School Systems

In this editorial from USA Today, the issue of teacher layoffs based on seniority (or lack thereof) – an issue whose existence I was entirely unaware of until reading this article – is discussed at length. Regarding the issue alone, I couldn’t help but find myself agreeing with the author’s point; it seems rather strange to employ a system for layoffs that weighs a teachers’ longevity with the district so heavily over general competence and student satisfaction. As the author mentions, there are many teachers who escape firing and attain seniority due to prescheduled teacher evaluations that fail to serve as an active judge of proficiency.  I don’t feel the need to explain why such a method is completely ridiculous – besides, it’s all there in the article – but suffice to say that if, as the author says, this system is already in use in school boards across the country, major reforms to our teacher evaluation system are desperately needed.

            The author makes mention of another system of evaluation some districts are experimenting with – one that “rate[s] teachers, in part by measuring students' progress on standardized tests. “ Though he goes on to say that this new practice is already “under fire” by teaching unions, I believe this sort of evaluation to be just as faulty as the seniority-based method. Standardized tests are not necessarily an effective litmus test for teacher capability – since the tests are, obviously, written to a standard, a teacher need only impart the information needed to pass the tests, and can usually do so through the use of materials compiled by the organizations that write these tests. I believe we need to devise a method of evaluation that takes into account teacher creativity and ingenuity, and an instructor’s willingness go outside the “track” of standardized teaching in order to get through to their students.

            The author’s persuasive methods were adequate to the point that I was sufficiently convinced of the validity of his position, but in all honesty I don’t believe this was a difficult argument to sell. The author was smart to provide examples of teachers remaining in their positions long after they should have been let go – such instances I imagine would be deeply affecting to the parents of schoolchildren, the likely demographic for a piece like this. He also exhibits and appropriate passion for the subject he is critiquing; I believe it is important for the author of an editorial to at least maintain the image that he deeply cares about the centerpiece to his story. All in all, the story seems like a considerable success.

In an article posted on CNN’s National News page today, the publication discusses a recent court decision that sanctions the right of a fanatical church to protest at the funerals of deceased members of the U.S. military .

Putting aside for a second the disgusting hatred displayed by Westboro Baptist Church (an organization now almost synonymous with hate speech), this decision raises a number of interesting questions about laws governing free speech. Ultimately we cannot fault Westboro for choosing to speak their minds – the ability of ordinary American citizens to deliver speeches with the potential to incite public unrest is one of the cornerstones of our society, and possibly the most powerful tool we have for inspiring real change. But protesting at a funeral seems like a pretty textbook case of privacy invasion, and I can’t help but question whether crashing a private military funeral should be a lawful act.