Fall 2013 Issue 13

Page 1

The

PIONEER

Issue 13 | December 13, 2013 | Whitman news since 1896 | Vol. CXXXI

XC team runs for cancer research

CANCELED MID-SEASON

by MITCHELL SMITH Staff Reporter

Film and media studies professor’s depature raises questions about hiring process

O

n the night of Thursday, Dec. 6, temperatures in Walla Walla reached 11 degrees Fahrenheit, and with the six-mileper-hour wind blowing, it felt like one degree. Instead of curling up in their rooms like most people would, the Whitman College cross-country team was outside, running lap after lap after lap around Ankeny Field. These laps were all part of the “Who Do You Run For?” event put on by the team, designed to raise awareness as well as funds for cancer research. The team, led by a small group of senior girls who have been particularly affected by a rare form of cancer called multiple myeloma, organized and set up the course, a 600-meter loop around the outside of Ankeny. The event started at noon on Thursday and ended at noon on Friday. During those 24 hours, at least two runners from either the men’s or women’s cross country teams were running at a time. So even when the wind chill approached zero degrees, the team was outside running for their friends and family. Photo by Bowersox

by Hannah Bartman Staff Reporter

W

But it wasn’t just the cross country team. The event ballooned and received support from around the Whitman community. While donations poured in, organizations around the school agreed to come out and either run or support the runners. The men’s tennis and soccer teams and the entire ultimate team made appearances, as did Schwa, which performed at noon on Friday as the final lap was run. “It’s amazing when you put on an event like this how people come out of the woodwork and say that they’ve been affected by cancer,” said senior Colleen Bell, one of the main organizers of the event. Anyone running was able to write the name of someone they knew see CHARITY RUN, page 6

hitman College has hired Tarik Elseewi as the new tenure-track assistant professor of film and media studies beginning in the fall semester of 2014. The administration’s choice, however, has been met with mixed reactions from students. Current Visiting Assistant Professor of Film and Media Studies Annie Petersen was not hired for the position and will leave after this academic year. The lack of student regard in the hiring process has produced issues between the administration and students. A Facebook group entitled “Advocates for Annie Petersen” has garnered a 133 member following, representing the frustration that the students feel towards the loss of Petersen and also the current format of the hiring process. “[The Advocates for Annie Petersen group] wants to emphasize that although Tarik is going to be a great professor here and do a lot of really good things for the department, it’s also really hard not to acknowledge the fact that we are losing something really valuable in letting go of Annie,” said sophomore film and media studies major Meg Logue. Over 100 candidates applied for the position, and three were brought to campus to give presentations. During the application process, the

candidates gave two presentations, one as a sample class and one presenting their research, to a public panel consisting of mostly student film and media studies majors. The hiring committee, which is composed of Professor of Film and Media Studies Robert Sickels (program chair), Associate Professor of Philosophy Rebecca Hanrahan (Division II chair), Associate Professor of Politics Aaron Bobrow-Strain, Assistant Professor of Art Justin Lincoln and Assistant Professor of Art History Matthew Reynolds, reviewed the public’s remarks, but the final decision was ultimately left up to this committee. The Committee of Division Chairs and the president also must approve the hire. “Many of us were on the panels, and we had overwhelmingly voted for her,” said junior film and media studies major Jess Good. “On the hiring committee we have a minimum of student input, but there are certain things that students could contribute [to the hiring process] which no hiring committee could ever see.” The leaders of the Advocates for Annie Petersen group, juniors Jess Good, Dana Thompson and Lindsey Holdren, encourage members to write letters which will be sent to the Board of Trustees, the hiring committee and the overseers. The letters include laments over the administration’s decision, a call to

form a third tenure position in the film and media studies department and a call to include more student involvement in the hiring process. “Most of our goal is to advocate for more transparency within the hiring committee and more student involvement even if it’s just a student majority vote or a student on the committee,” said Logue. The students who participated in the public panel had access to the job description and kept those stipulations in mind when writing their assessments of each presentation. As a formal policy, however, the administration does not announce the hire to the public or give any reasons for their choice. “They did not make an announcement, which I understand they don’t do, but I think that’s extremely cowardly,” said Good. “It was a blow out of nowhere that no one expected.” Students know that there were a variety of factors that led to Elseewi’s hire, but they speculate that the administration wanted a candidate who specialized in global studies, and Elseewi’s specialization in electronic media and national identity in the Arab Middle East fits this description. “I believe that Professor Elseewi will make a wonderful addition to the Whitman faculty,” said Provost and Dean of Faculty Tim Kaufman-Osborn in an email. “In addition to considerable ex-

pertise in various forms of mass media, including but not limited to television, he will bring to Whitman a perspective that will significantly enhance our commitment to introduce global perspectives into our curriculum.” With this stipulation for the position in mind, Logue points out that Elseewi is a good fit for the job. However, Logue wishes the college could have been more transparent with the students in regard to the administration’s desired qualifications for the position. “One of the things they were looking for was globalization, and that was one of the things Tarik marketed himself really well for, and he would be really qualified in that area. Having that in mind, it makes a lot of sense that they hired him,” said Logue. “But it was definitely very difficult for students going in because [the students giving feedback] weren’t aware that the college was looking for that criteria in specific.” In regard to tangible change, Good recognizes that advocating for a third tenure position in the small film and media studies department is unlikely for financial reasons. The group’s main focus, then, lies in their wish to include student opinion in the hiring process. According to Good, this would take form in altering the college’s formal hiring process by having more transparency along the lines of what the see PETERSEN, page 2

Debate team members collaborate with inmates at penitentiary, organize debate by sam grainger-shuba Staff Reporter

A

fter removing all pieces of metal, storing keys, cell phones and wallets in lockers, Whitman College staff, faculty and students filed into the Washington State Penitentiary. At an automatic metal door, driver’s licenses were traded for prison ID badges that allowed access to a sparsely furnished recreation room, the walls painted with brightly colored murals. Inmate debaters sat on either side of a podium, accompanied by four or five Whitman students, ready to begin the debate. Two years ago, a member of the Washington State Penitentiary education staff, Dr. Joe Cooke, Jr., approached the Whitman debate program about hosting a debate where Whitman students and prisoners debate together over current issues. Dec. 3, 2013 marked the date of the first ever debate. “The debate team is commit-

ted to public outreach when possible and working on educational opportunities for those incarcerated individuals working on their degrees is a perfect example of that,” said Director of Debate Kevin Kuswa. “In my opinion, the Whitman students learned a great deal from the experience, including a greater sense of perspective, a connection to debate that goes beyond just winning and losing, and a way to bring research and speaking skills to a group that will need those skills to adjust once they get out of the Penitentiary.” The prisoners who participated in Tuesday’s debate are currently taking debate classes through a program from Walla Walla Community College. The class focuses on respectful, nonviolent disagreement, reflection and research. Twelve Whitman students had 11 hours with the prisoners to prepare for the debate. “Debate is a valuable tool for anyone, especially people who often need to advocate for them-

selves in the judicial system,” said first-year debater Emma Newmark. “Getting Whitman debaters involved in the prison debates is a way for debaters to share our expertise with those who can benefit from the skills that are associated with debate and public speaking.” The debate was set up with an introduction, two main arguments, two chances for acknowledgment and rebuttal, a segment of answering questions from the audience and closing remarks. Prisoners debated the following question: Should the prison system in the United States be fully privatized? Those who debated in favor of the resolution argued that private prisons are a better option than public prisons and that they’re better for prisoners and not overcrowded. “The public system has botched everything, especially recidivism [overcrowdedness],” said inmate Kevin Kafiyev in his opening statement. “Inmates in private prisons have better food, more

access to educational programming and they tend to like it better.” They also argued that there could be federal government oversight to the private prisons in the form of a social impact bond, which is a contract that requires the company to meet a standard set by an employer. “Yes, there might be some problems with private prisons,” said Whitman debate senior Marten King. “But a social impact bond that requires a company to meet government standards, such as lowering recidivism levels, would fix that.” Those who debated against the revolution argued that privatizing the prison system would put a monetary value on human life, and thus would morph the prison system from an institution of punishment and rehabilitation to a corporation system that needs to fill beds to turn a profit. “The future of safety and health of inmates would be based on profits and values of the shareholders,” said inmate Muntasir Dykes. “The nature of the profit model means more pris-

ons and more people incarcerated.” After a drumroll, the con side was announced to have won the debate, arguing that prisons should not be privatized. During a small question and answer, it came to light how it was decided who would debate what. “Part of how we divided up the teams was an informal poll seeing which side of the resolution people initially supported,” said first-year debater Emma Thompson. “The goal was to require people to debate for the side opposite their initial inclination, which is, in my experience, the best way to really understand an issue, because it requires a thorough understanding of both sides and is great practice for developing critical nuanced perspectives.” After the debate, debaters dispersed into the audience to talk about the decision, as well as the program that allowed them to debate. “It was a very professional debate,” said sophomore and current see DEBATE, page 2


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.