- Old Timer on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "This interview is going to the first of many skeletons in the closet f..."
- Who Dat? on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "Goldberg plays a smooth 2nd base, and has mastered the swinging bunt...."
- A Mitch on Photo Essay: Swim and Track Meets: "good lines, maybe try some canted framing to make the races feel more ..."
- Kimberly M. on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "The ex-Navy Seal is the best part of the Washington Program. <3..."
- Adam Smillie on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "Isaac Goldberg, you're me hero......"
New Issue of the Claremont Independent
It’s online now. Highlights:
“Risky Business: Is it About CMC?” by Chase Gray. Chase explores the possibility that the CMC alumnus who made the movie Risky Business might have
“Genetics Don’t Explain History” by Tina Nguyen, a review of Henry Louis Gates Jr. talk at the Athenaeum
“Dr. Imad Moustapha: Making Excuses for Syria” by Ian Johnson, a review of Ambassador Moustapha’s talk at the Athenaeum.
“Diversity Groups and Academic Performance” by Ilan Wurman
Bonus:
A strange, unsigned article attacking ASCMC for the Ludacris concert. Based on “anonymous sources” and rumors instead of actual reporting, there are so many inaccuracies in this article it almost warrants a quick read; the CI is usually much more reliable than this. Just remember, if you have a question about ASCMC, all ASCMC Board meetings are open to the public on Sundays at 6 PM in the Heggblade Conference Room and most budget documents are publicly announced here or at ascmc.org.
10 Comments
2009-02-15
10:55:35
I'm not sure if the "highlights" reflect the Forum's anti-Charles bias or its timidity in approaching tough issues (like Islam and homosexuality). While the pieces mentioned are quite good, the actual highlights of the issue include the bold Ali pieces (both the interview and Charles's editorial) and the piece on the Pomona-Pitzer ROTC ban. Come on, everyone knows where the editors of the Forum stand at this point, but give credit where credit is due.
2009-02-15
12:08:29
I think you're making something out of nothing, Bill.
The Forum didn't link to an article by Charles (except for the botched piece on ASCMC) but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with those articles. They are prominently featured on the CI's website, which is linked to in the first line of this post.
The highlights (maybe "highlights" wasn't the best word) are meant to show off some of the articles that aren't so prominent on the CI's website.
2009-02-15
16:26:17
As for the unsigned article, it's based on sources from two ASCMC members who requested their anonymity. As is customary with any newspaper -- New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. -- we only run an article when it has at least two sources that corroborate. I checked much of the figures with a third ASCMC member. At least three CI members were involved in this article.
2009-02-15
16:29:36
As for the timidity of the Forum to put up anything that I've written or had a hand in, I think the traffic figures on the CI website speak for themselves. As of last night at midnight, here's the information. (We put the issue up at around 10PM)
1 We Stand with Ali 129 Reads
2 "There is No Moderate Islam" 90 Reads
3 No Heroes Need Apply 87 Reads
4 Priorities, Please 68 Reads
5 Diversity Groups and Academic Performance 44 Reads
2009-02-15
16:54:22
If your sources were really ASCMC board members, they gave you false information and inaccurate figures, maybe because they know you would only aim to cast ASCMC in a negative light regardless of the facts. However, I doubt they actually were ASCMC members, or members who knew enough to be considered a source, or they wouldn't have requested to be anonymous.
You should be thankful the Forum linked to the Claremont Independent and I do not know why you are complaining about a gesture of goodwill like this. You are just prone to anger and hate.
2009-02-15
16:59:02
How about some of the articles that actually broke news?
1. the Questbridge cancellation piece.
2. the ROTC piece on how Oxtoby still won't change policy
Instead the Forum decides to link up only to the safe topics. I thought this thing was supposed to be a, well, a Forum. Guess not.
2009-02-15
17:01:19
Could you please explain to me how those figures are inaccurate? I was told by at least one member of the budgeting committee that they were told to "disregard" the figures from Ludacris because the accounting was so messed up. Now that might be more of a problem with the Dean of Students, but we deserve a little more transparency. Is Ludacris worth half of what our graduation speaker is?
I challenge any member of ASCMC to come forward and tell us what we did wrong in our article.
2009-02-15
17:14:54
Why does everything have to become an argument or controversy? Take it easy.
Sure, The Forum could have linked to every single article in the CI as they were almost all pretty link-worthy, but instead we just linked to the entire publication and pointed out some of the less prominently displayed stories.
If you hold a different opinion about what should have or should not have been linked to, that's fine. But there's no reason to be malicious about it.
2009-02-15
17:15:59
Maybe it's because the Forum is supposed to be, as the person up top noted, a Forum and isn't supposed to display the kind of bias it does.
2009-02-16
02:33:31
"The highlights (maybe 'highlights' wasn’t the best word) are meant to show off some of the articles that aren’t so prominent on the CI’s website."
Why not correct the original post to clarify this?