UCI student protests prevent effective debate
I’m not sure which piece upset me more the alumnus who incorrectly assumes that a person with an addiction cannot be helped by Christianity or Ms. Abu-Ghattas’ column on the protests at UC Irvine. A good newspaper encourages debate and this week’s issue certainly accomplished that. For the sake of brevity I’ll limit my comments to the latter column.
In her editorial Ms. Abu-Ghattas asserts that Arab students at UCI who interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren were merely exercising their First Amendment rights. I believe the framers of our Constitution never intended this right to be a means of preventing debate. If you have seen the news coverage of the speech at UCI you will see that a group of students systematically and repeatedly interrupted the speaker. I am certain that the author would not feel the same way if a Palestinian speaker was prevented from speaking by a group of Israeli students.
The author contends that the UCI students’ actions were justified because of alleged human rights abuses by the state of Israel. Certainly the violence is not one-sided. Nowhere in Ms. Abu-Ghattas’ article does she acknowledge any of the terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Are those lost lives any less precious? The author contends that “the eradication of all Muslims sounds a lot like genocide to me.” Yet most Arab extremist groups advocate exactly the same thing when speaking of Israel. They simply want to destroy the state of Israel and its people. To paraphrase Ms. Abu-Ghattas that sounds a lot like genocide to me.
Lastly the author implores fellow Christians to re-evaluate their support of the state of Israel. “What would Jesus do?” asks the author. I think he would be pleased that holy sites in Jerusalem and throughout Israel are protected. Contrast that with the Palestinians’ desecration of Joseph’s tomb in Nablus and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem. Taking this into account how secure can we Christians feel about holy sites in Jerusalem if it was part of a Palestinian state?
In summation what the author and I have done here is an example of free speech. Ms. Abu-Ghattas presented her views and I as a reader responded with mine. Contrast that to what the students at UC Irvine did and I think you can see my point.
Larry LevyPepperdine Staff
Flaws plague Teach for America program
I am writing in response to the Feb. 18 article about Teach for America. The program is portrayed in a highly positive light without an opinion from those actually involved in the education world. Educators criticize Teach for America for two main reasons: it is a slap in the face to those who earn teaching credentials through legitimate means and it does more harm than good by placing unqualified people into the toughest classrooms in the nation.
I have participated over the past two years in the rigorous Pepperdine Seaver Teacher Education Program (PepSTEP). I have spent thousands of hours earning my teaching credential. The fact that a Teach for America participant can somehow receive the exact same credential as me is a disgrace to my profession.
The Graphic is incorrect in stating that Teach for America program participants are qualified. Mentioning a “rigorous” six-week course as adequate training is laughable. Highly qualified educators should be teaching in the inner city not unqualified recent college graduates with no teaching experience. Many leave Teach for America after the two-year commitment is over providing no educational change. This constant turnover of public school teachers in the inner city creates enormous problems.
People are not wrong for wanting to make a difference. However the program is inherently flawed. Real educators know that if you want to make an impact you need not only the desire but proper training. I cannot stress enough that if you want to teach you should enter into a teacher education program rather than take the easy road and apply for Teach for America. Matt Hurdle Economics Major PepSTEP Participant Class of 2010