Thoughts on the Computer Lab's Policies of Kicking People Off the Computers

Admittedly this question isn't the most pressing one facing our campus today, but I thought it would be an interesting thought experiment.

Every so often, computer L.T.A.s must make the hike down from North Campus to refill the paper in the printers, to make sure all of the chairs are pushed in, and to sign people off from their computers, should they have wandered too far off.

I wonder about the wisdom of that final part of the LTAs job description. Now to be fair, LTAs want to guarantee that all of the computers are used efficiently. LTAs don't want students to monopolize the computers by leaving them logged onto their own accounts, and so they log them off. In fact, I'm told that there's a policy of logging people off the computers if they have been away from the computer for too long. Just who gets to decide how long is, of course, a judgment to be made by the LTA on duty.

This presents weird social dynamics. For instance, what if the person logged onto the computer has gone to the bathroom and has only left the computer for five minutes? How does the LTA know? Moreover, what if the LTA knows the person and decides to have select enforcement?

It would seem that the proper way to deal with this problem would be to have the computers register idleness and then shut down, automatically saving whatever was on the computer to a specific folder. At peak hours of lab usage, this could move people along.

Ethics 101 for The Port Side's Michelle Kahn

As journalistic ethics seem to be in rather short supply over at The Port Side and now that they've responded on their blog, I thought I might let them know that it is a customary, ethical practice for a source to see the person he talked to mentioned in a contribution line if the author's name isn't in the byline. This lets the source know if the person he is talking to is credible and gives him an easier time if legal recourse is necessary to respond to the story if is libelous. It's standard practice when a new source is introduced, as it was in her piece.

Given that Andrew wrote the email to me, I was rightly expecting he wouldn't be a part of the story in addition. He was. 

 Bluebond wrote the email to me, did he not? That's part of the reporting process, unless Michelle wrote it initially and then why didn't she contact me? I guess she's not that serious about dialogue on campus. 

As for fact-checking, he wrote a factually inaccurate article about Sarah Palin. I called him on it. That's keeping people honest. 

Fact Checking Andrew Bluebond's The Port Side (Again)

The Claremont Port Side has a very slanted article calling for, among other things, civility at the Claremont Colleges. By examining the state of conservatives on CMC's campus, they do us all a good service, but by libeling me and misrepresenting the work I do on The Claremont Conservative and The Claremont Independent, I am forced to respond.

I also judge that its editor, Andrew Bluebond, made a significant ethical violation as editor of The Port Side. He both wrote part of the story and was interviewed for it. Generally, when this happens, it is journalistic protocol to mention it in a contribution line, but Bluebond has no such contribution line. When sources respond to an email, they expect that the name of the person they are talking to will also appear in the by line. Unfortunately, this article is more the work of a hack than a journalist. It has low standards, even for The Claremont Port Side, which at one time was almost sued by The Claremont Institute for libeling Harry Jaffa and the Institute.

It's in part due to that tendency to libel people that I've decided not to associate with The Claremont Port Side As the Claremont Independent only covers school issues from a conservative-libertarian angle, its been quite easy to avoid them.

As usual with The Port Side when it delves into school issue, they get a few things wrong, especially in reference to me, The Claremont Independent, and The Claremont Conservative. Had I been interviewed, I would have gladly corrected that record, but I was not, despite offering to help on numerous occasions. (So much for dialogue!)


They write, with emphasis mine,

As the most visible expressions of CMC’s progressive and conservative voices, the Port Side and the Claremont Independent have always enjoyed a friendly rivalry, according to Wurman. The two publications have a responsibility to the 5Cs — not just to write articles that reflect their ideological preferences, but also to engage one another in productive debate. “I think the relationship is good for the community in that we’ve had editorial debates in the past,” Wurman says. “That’s exactly what college should be about.”

But when the CI changed leadership this semester, animosity supplanted the friendly rivalry. Having edited the Port Side during the tenures of both Wurman and current CI editor Charles Johnson ’11, Andrew Bluebond ’11 has noticed a change in the amount and type of dialogue between the publications. “[Wurman] and I have a good relationship, but we rarely engaged one another in our work,” Bluebond says. Though the newsmagazines often covered the same issues, interaction was rare.

Bluebond is probably referring to the fact checking I have done on this blog about the work that The Claremont Port Side does. One of the articles from Bluebond was so ridden with factual inaccuracies that I felt compelled to respond on this blog. Still another ridiculed Bluebond's support for the ill-fated birth control provision of the stimulus bill.

(Added an hour later:) Let's continue with the Port Side. Apparently, I am am impediment to "peaceful coexistence" because I argue that ASCMC shouldn't be subsidizing the Port Side, but the reasons I am opposed to funding them are actually three-fold. 

1) Given that they were once nearly sued by the Claremont Institute for libel, all of ASCMC was liable for damages. I think that was the opportunity to eliminate their funding. We shouldn't all be on the hook every time they go to print. 

2) I am opposed to a newspaper receiving any funds from a student government on the grounds that that newspaper's free speech becomes diminished when it cannot criticize that student government or else risk loss of its funding. This is the same reason I oppose the newspaper bail out bill and that I oppose funding The Student Life.  

3) On procedural grounds, I don't see what the campus gains from a news magazine that apes the style of The New Republic. Can't I just subscribe to The New Republic? (I used to, back when I lived in Boston.)

But you wouldn't know that from the article because again I wasn't interviewed.

When Johnson took over, however, peaceful coexistence became difficult. Johnson opposes ASCMC’s subsidizing the Port Side on the grounds that it “currently does not” cover campus news. “We don’t understand why college students want to read what other college students have to say about international or national topics,” he said. “When we go looking for thoughtful, progressive commentary, we turn to the New Republic.” Johnson’s attitude towards the Port Side adds some strain to the relationship, but Bluebond does not believe that it should prevent the two publications from working together.

. . .

“However, if I can’t tell where one ends and the other begins, it is difficult to make definitive statements about either of them.” According to Johnson, the board of the CI has not voted on merging the political journal and the blog, but the issue has been discussed; however, it seems that there is an informal merger at work. The Claremont Conservative has been used to host the stories that did not make it into the print edition of the CI and there visitors to the blog can donate to redo the political journal’s website.

I made it very clear to the Claremont Port Side's editor where the two publications -- The Claremont Conservative and The Claremont Independent with respect to one another. Contrary to what Bluebond/Kahn wrote, The Claremont Conservative has hosted my work in its original, pre-Elise Viebeck-edited form. That makes sense, right? This blog, after all, was my creation, so why shouldn't it host my work?

Here's what I wrote to Andrew after he wrote this email to me. You get a very clear sense of his journalistic integrity. The issue of merging the blog has never been discussed by a Board meeting of The Claremont Independent. It's just not true.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles,

One of our writers is working on a piece for the next issue of the Claremont Port Side on conservatives at CMC. Ilan was already interviewed for the story, and I think it is coming along nicely; however, I thought I should shoot you an email because your name came up in course of the story. I wanted to give you a chance to comment.

One of the sections is on the relationship between the CI and the CPS. In that section, the author quotes me as indicating that the relationship between the two publications changed. I am also quoted as mentioning that the CC and CI seem be undergoing a merger of sorts. I was hoping you might comment on this subject.

Let me know what you think,

Andrew

--
Andrew Bluebond
Claremont McKenna College
Class of 2011
Andrew.Bluebond.11@cmc.edu

Reply

Forward

Reply by chat to Andrew

Charles Johnson to Andrew, bcc: Ilan, bcc: Aditya, bcc: Daniel, bcc: John-Clark, bcc: Chase

show details Mar 21

Reply

Hi Andrew,

Is this the piece that Michelle Kahn is working on?

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you are misinformed.

I've thought about merging the two and wrote a blog post about what that kind of merger would look like, but I'm sure what that would look like or if this is an appropriate time to merge it.

The Board of the Claremont Independent hasn't met and we haven't decided yet on whether the Claremont Independent and the Claremont Conservative should merge and what that merger should look like. We'll be making that determination in the future, but as of right now, nothing to report or comment on. [Emphasis mine.]

As for the changed relationship to the Claremont Port Side, my position is that the Port Side should cover school news and as it currently does not, it should not receive a subsidy from ASCMC. We don't understand why college students want to read what other college students have to say about international or national topics. When we go looking for thoughtful, progressive commentary, we turn to The New Republic.

Best,

Charles

I suspect that the real reason that The Claremont Port Side is trying to suggest that The Claremont Conservative and the Claremont Independent are one in the same -- even though he knows they are not -- is to malign both of them by taking advantage of the rumors circulating against me. A successful PR campaign has been orchestrated against me by several people on The Forum and the left generally on campus and I have rarely responded because to do so would be legitimize some of those rumors about me. And frankly, it's also kind of fun to be the bad boy of campus conservatism. (Although being spat on at Pitzer, having my email tampered with, or being threatened, certainly isn't.)

Given that they are dozens of flat out rumors spread about me, this is a good tactic, if one wanted to discredit the news magazine of record on our campus, which The Port Side assuredly wants to. It makes it look as if The Claremont Independent, which under my leadership has grown tremendously, is the work of one man, but frankly, that's insulting to the students who work for The CI or to the men and women, who by their own talent, have gone on to win internships in journalism. And, unlike The Port Side, we've done it by producing quality work that people want to support with their own resources.

Obama is Painted Over

In Comparative Government today I wanted to make the case that queer nation was not a nation as it couldn't self-propagate, a criteria that I find important for any nation. (We were asked if "queer nation" was, in fact, a nation and I argued that it isn't because gays can't self propagate.) 

But apparently I was wrong. It has its acolytes and adherents over at Pomona College. A friend writes me,

I'm a little amused that the giant Vote Obama '08 sign on Pomona's graffiti wall has finally been painted over, along with every other sign there, most of which were advertising liberal causes.

To what do we owe this?

A giant rainbow banner for Pride Week. I wondered what would finally be powerful enough to loose Obama's grip on the Wall.

Looks like we have a patron saint more powerful than the One! Be afraid, progressives, be very afraid.