HNC Home Page
News Business Arts & Life Sports Opinion Calendar Archive About Us
COLD FEET: Birds take to the ice as winter makes its appearance at Yellowstone National Park. / Photo by Nancy Williams

Today's word on journalism

Monday, November 5, 2007

On Objectivity:

"I still insist that 'objective journalism' is a contradiction in terms. But I want to draw a very hard line between the inevitable reality of 'subjective journalism' and the idea that any honestly subjective journalist might feel free to estimate a crowd at a rally for some candidates the journalist happens to like personally at 2,000 instead of 612 -- or to imply that a candidate the journalist views with gross contempt, personally, is a less effective campaigner than he actually is."

-- Hunter S. Thompson, from Fear & Loathing: CORRECTIONS, RETRACTIONS, APOLOGIES, COP-OUTS, ETC., a 1972 memo to Rolling Stone editor Jann S. Wenner, excerpted in the current (November 2007) issue of Harper’s Magazine (Thanks to alert WORDster Andy Merton)

The arts have no place in public education

By Leslie Mason

October 22, 2007 | "A comprehensive education is a well-stocked pharmacy, but we have no assurance that potassium cyanide will not be administered for a head cold." This quote by Karl Kraus clearly illustrates one danger that comes from giving children too much in their education. By forcing students to take superfluous classes like theater, music, or painting, administrators are overmedicating children in reference to their education.

Fortunately, "the arts" are dramatically diminishing in most classrooms around Utah, easing the mental burden on children. Students are restricted to contemplating the more useful, life-changing fields of science and mathematics.

According to the director of the Coalition for Arts in Utah Schools (CAUS), the decrease of the arts in schools is more rampant than could have been hoped. Early elementary school classes in Utah are no longer incorporating any arts programs in their school curriculum. Our society has finally advanced enough that we have discarded many of the programs that will individualize and estrange the students.

The kids of future generations don't have to learn to color between the lines or glue macaroni to construction paper; they are allowed to simply focus on the beneficial aspects of learning. This will prevent freethinking children from becoming freethinking adults who will cause strife as they try to change systems that have worked well enough for many years. Necessity is the mother of invention, so if a business runs well now it's silly to change anything.

The Director of CAUS also cites pro-arts information from a study done by the University of California. This study stated that students involved in at least four years of art study scored 58 points higher on verbal and 38 points higher on math SAT tests than average students. When this information is taken in context and pondered realistically, however, what could the director of an organization without a good acronym really know? Thus, this study is very probably a poor representation of the academic world, which happened to meet the needs of the director. Please disregard the statistics.

Despite evidence that science-based programs are less arduous for students, there are still many supporters of school arts programs. Dr. Ernest Boyer, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, stated the following: "Above all, we need the arts to create community and to build connections across the generations."

Also a supporter of arts education, Barbra Streisand gives an equally tear-jerking account: "The far right is waging a war for the soul of America by making art a partisan issue. And by trying to cut these arts programs, which bring culture, education, and joy into the lives of ordinary Americans, they are hurting the very people they claim to represent."

Fascinating. So ordinary people without extraordinary talent can change the world and the future by simply being exposed to the arts in their youth. Forgive me if I'm slightly skeptical. A great student of any emphasis can become an icon and influence the course of our world. For example, Michelangelo in his art, Handel in his music, Pythagoras' contributions to math, and Einstein's theory of relativity have all changed our world permanently. Kudos to them.

However, does every student have that kind of glimmer hidden behind a wall of coal?

"But suppose," asks the student of the professor, "we follow all your structural rules for writing, what about that 'something else' that brings the book alive? What is the formula for that? The formula for that is not included in the curriculum."

Fannie Hurst has an excellent point. Even if schools incorporate the arts, there is no formula or pattern for teaching students to become great artists of one discipline or another. Artistic talents are innate in some students and inadequate in others. If the arts are taught within the classroom, these differences would become apparent to the classes and student rivalry could result. Imagine if your son attended a theater class where his one "academic" weakness, acting, was forced upon him every day. Focusing students' education on objective studies avoids this potentially self-esteem-crushing dilemma.

Although this list of negative aspects of the arts has been fairly conclusive thus far, it is not complete. The arts have a final, solemn grievance against them: expense. Artistic pursuits in schools are rarely able to fund themselves. These unnecessary classes then take the lion's share of limited funds just to stay afloat financially.

Tom Neuville, a Minnesota state senator, gave his sound opinion on the matter of an appeal for an increase in arts funding. "People favor dedicated funding for preserving wetlands, wildlife habitat, clean water and other environmental activities. This is because there is a common understanding that the State has a fiduciary duty to preserve its natural resources. The same cannot be said for arts funding."

Schools and communities keep crying for more arts funding despite the fact that the funds are resulting in no return. On the other hand, extracurricular activities like football and basketball bring profits through ticket prices and the items sold to consumers at games. An art exhibit or a play rarely gets the same response from a community. Although society in general supports the arts in their words, they fail to support them with their actions.

Extra funding for the arts would be a complete waste, as students can achieve a well-rounded education without the arts. Many extracurricular activities are in place to help students become active and beneficial members in their neighborhood. Students can learn much more from participating in the Key Club than they can in the marching band.

So. The arts are simply a load of junk with a plethora of coincidental positive study results. Students would benefit multiple times over by taking up a sport than they would from picking up a saxophone.

All you community members who disagree with that statement, show up to the next orchestra concert and tell me that a pack of screeching violins is really making your world a better place.

NW
RB

Copyright 1997-2007 Utah State University Department of Journalism & Communication, Logan UT 84322, (435) 797-3292
Best viewed 800 x 600.