Talk:Collegiate Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is supported by the Education WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Education-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|||
| Portal | |||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
Anonymous though I am, I thought I'd just mention that this entry reads like it was written by the "Network" itself. 100% pure conservative hyperbole and rhetoric. While obviously I wouldn't say that it should be turned into a screed against the organization, it's pretty skewed toward the organization's agenda, and certainly doesn't put forth a semblance of NPOV.
You are entitled to feel that way. Identify which lines you feel are POV and note your recommendations so that the entry can be as accurate as possible. I prefer an open discussion like this one as opposed to anonymous changes to an entry in order to debate possibly POV lines. ND Conservative 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] NPOV: Introduction
Compare the "About" page of the CN's own web site (retrieved 2006 Feb 11):
"The Collegiate Network focuses public awareness on the politicization of American college and university classrooms, curricula, student life, and the resulting decline of educational standards."
with the current second sentence of the article:
"The Collegiate Network (also, CN) is a non-profit, non-partisan tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to focusing public awareness on the politicization of American college and university classrooms, curricula, student life, and the resulting decline of educational standards."
Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is a good idea both for an encyclopedic reference and for the reputation of the contributor. Moreover, the "politicization of American college and university classrooms, curricula, student life, and the resulting decline of educational standards" is an argument by one side of many, not a consensus fact. (See NPOV policy: Bias.) Contributions made in good faith should strive to reflect NPOV already, rather than rely upon someone else to notice and perform a trivial Google search. Ramseyk 05:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV: History
Compare the "History" page of the CN's own web site (retrieved 2006 Feb 11):
"In 1979, two students at the University of Chicago asked a think-tank for help to counter the one-sided reporting that dominated the principal student publication on their campus. Then freshmen, Tod Lindberg and John Podhoretz founded a newspaper that presented alternative views, and they received a grant to defray publishing costs. They wrote, like hundreds of publications have since then, the following: "You have ensured the financial survival of Counterpoint, for which we and, we daresay, the University of Chicago itself are most grateful."
"Although nobody realized it at the time, this was the start of a grassroots movement that has since grown into the Collegiate Network. This movement seeks to call higher education back to its touchstones of academic freedom, intellectual integrity, unfettered debate, and an understanding of the values of Western civilization. Lindberg is now the editor of the Hoover Institution's Policy Review and Podhoretz is a columnist for the New York Post.
"The Institute for Educational Affairs (IEA), an organization that provided grants to intellectual projects, began offering seed money to alternative student publications—which soon became publicly known as the Collegiate Network—in 1980. The Network continued to flourish under IEA's administration, which, by 1983, had added summer and year-long internships, and was distributing regular operating grants to student newspapers. In 1990, the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, an organization then headed by William Bennett, Harvey Mansfield, and Alan Bloom, merged with IEA to sustain the growing number of conservative student publications which, at the time numbered 57. The Madison Center administered the Network until 1995, when the Collegiate Network moved from Washington, DC to Wilmington, Delaware. Since then the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has administered the CN."
with the current "History" section of the article:
"In 1979, two students at the University of Chicago, asked a think-tank for help to counter the one-sided reporting that dominated the principal student publication on their campus. Then freshmen, Tod Lindberg and John Podhoretz founded a newspaper that presented alternative views, and they received a grant to defray publishing costs. Although nobody realized it at the time, this was the start of a grassroots movement that has since grown into the Collegiate Network. This movement seeks to call higher education back to its touchstones of academic freedom, intellectual integrity, unfettered debate, and an understanding of the values of Western civilization. Lindberg is now the editor of the Hoover Institution's Policy Review, and Podhoretz is a columnist for the New York Post.
"The Institute for Educational Affairs (IEA), an organization that provided grants to intellectual projects, began offering seed money to alternative student publications—which soon became publicly known as the Collegiate Network—in 1980. The Network continued to flourish under IEA's administration, which by 1983 had added summer and year-long internships, and was distributing regular operating grants to student newspapers. In 1990, the Madison Center for Educational Affairs, an organization then headed by William Bennett, Harvey Mansfield, and Alan Bloom, merged with IEA to sustain the growing number of conservative student publications, which at the time numbered 57. The Madison Center administered the Network until 1995, when the Collegiate Network moved from Washington, DC to Wilmington, Delaware. Since then the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has administered the CN."
Comments same as above. Additionally, if the contribution copied the CN's web site rather than the reverse, it's probably violating the Copyright policy. Bad idea, and it gives the impression of bad faith. Ramseyk 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV Check
See NPOV dispute and POV check. Note the writing of the article throughout, and note the article's edit history. We need to reach a consensus here without descending into edit war. NPOV is not in evidence in, for example,
Impact
"By documenting questionable uses of mandatory student fees, the proliferation of politicized academic departments, and the stifling of debate through constitutionally dubious speech codes,"
Alumni
"alumni have proven themselves to be some of the brightest and most promising members of the rising generation"
Membership
Compare to the CN's own "Mission" page (retrieved 2006 Feb 11): "Assistance includes annual operating grants, mentoring sessions, annual training conferences, extensive guidance from experienced professionals, editorial resources, an online magazine showcasing student journalism, and year-long fellowships and summer internships at leading national media outlets."
CAMPUS Magazine
Compare to the Campus Magazine's own "About" page (retrieved 2006 Feb 11): "CAMPUS Magazine Online (CMO) is the only national student-written online magazine for college students that provides a national platform for student articles on current abuses and potential reforms in higher education. ... Observers have deplored attempts by college administrators and faculty to silence student complaints regarding the steady politicization of the academy. The goal of CAMPUS Magazine Online is to focus public awareness on the denial of the right of free speech to those who do not follow the academic party line on curriculum reform, classroom politicization, and declining educational standards."
Let's avoid calling edits "fundraising letters" and "assaults". That doesn't help. Let's instead focus on attaining NPOV and on correcting the (let's assume) well-intended web site duplications that have the effect of making this article look really, really bad. Ramseyk 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Objective references to reputation and involvement on campus
It seems that it would be appropriate to cite and include information concerning the partisan track record of the CN. The claim in the first paragraph of this article that the organization is non-partisan is legally true, however there is a reputation and association which suggests otherwise and ought to be mentioned.
Feel free to recommend to add the evidence you cite for challenging the record of non-partisanship. While the CN maintains a non-partisan status, for tax status purposes, they do not claim to lack an ideology, that of conservatism. In my opinion, the typical reader understands the meaning of non-partisan the way they understand that "bipartisan legislation" needs only one vote from the other party. ND Conservative 12:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that "partisanship" is related to legislation or to the American system of governance specifically. The word has to be used in it's own universal terms. As you said yourself, they do no deny their philosophical aims and therefore it ought to be specified that while the organization holds it's non-partisan status for tax purposes, it has a record and an admitted reputation to the contrary. They're two different points. And it's irresponsible to assume the reader is placing the organization in the context of the US Congress, because that doesn't make any sense. However, I like the changes that have been made.
