Spinnaker [Distributed: Wednesday, February 7, 2007]

Senator Evelyn J. Lynn (R-Fla.) recently introduced a bill in the state senate proposing to extend the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program to pay for summer classes at public state universities. While it seems like a great idea and a natural extension of the existing system, the proposal deserves a more critical look in light of new information from the state about the welfare of the State University System.

The Bright Futures program is a great asset to students in the Sunshine State. No amount of research can probably ever discern how many children it's directly responsible for sending to institutions of higher education, but the numbers are big. The fact that a state is willing to allocate a significant portion of its budget - and it is significant - to paving the way for underprivileged students to have an opportunity like that says a lot about the priorities of the state.

But the rosy ideals underlying the program can only carry it so far. New research is showing that Bright Futures is one of the biggest financial burdens on the SUS and, in fact, is likely to bankrupt it unless some serious cuts are made. A report prepared by Pappas Consulting Group, a Connecticut-based consultant contracted by the Florida Board of Governors to assess the condition of the SUS, cites Bright Futures along with the Florida Prepaid College Plan as one of the most likely offenders to break down an already strained system.

The solution Pappas offers lies in the creation of a State College System, a new division of the SUS, wherein certain of the organization's 11 member universities - University of North Florida included - would shift their focus solely to undergraduate education and cut the costs associated with offering master's and doctoral degrees.

The response from UNF, as well as other universities whom Pappas recommended be downgraded to undergraduate-exclusive institutions, has been quick and unequivocal. Nobody wants to do it. But the SUS cannot have its creamy cake of college cost-cutting and eat it, too.

The University of North Florida is a growing institution and ought not to be considered for the proposed SCS. It doesn't meet any of the criteria a school should have as defined by Pappas in the report. Unless state lawmakers can find a way to satisfy the Bright Futures program's appetite for large heaps of money, though, UNF is in danger of losing its graduate studies programs.

While Sen. Lynn's intentions may be noble, the notion of increasing Bright Futures' coverage at this point seems dangerously ignorant of the larger context of educational crisis in Florida.

Students can only hope that their elected officials will be able to divine a way to fund the change, because it would certainly benefit them - especially in a curriculum that requires them to take summer classes to graduate - but now, in the midst of an impending breakdown that's due in large part to the cost of the very thing she's looking to expand, is not the time.

Students and the general public can voice their opinions about the future of the SUS at www.flbog.org/ ForwardByDesign.

Genetic decisions best left up to nature

Editorial

Choosing the sex, eye and hair color of your baby may not sound so unusual. But what about choosing to make your child bind, deaf or dwarfed?

That is the question now facing society and modern medical science. As the genetics field advances, so do the ethical questions we must ask ourselves.

Just because science enables us to choose the hair and eye color of our children, should we? Just because science enables us to choose to have a boy or a girl, should we? What about how tall a child will be? How they will learn? How they will act? Research shows that personality traits along with physical traits are embedded in our genes, so what will stop us from determining everything about a child before it is even born?

The possibilities of genetic testing and embryonic screening are endless. But instead of eye color, the question now revolves around whether the child will be able to use those chosen blue eyes to see.

Some disabled couples want the right to make their children "like them" by using genetic testing to ensure the children they have will have defective genes and therefore increase their chances of having disabilities.

Some scientists say is it possible for couples to choose to have disabled children through the process of embryonic screening. Traditionally used to test for genetic defects that would cause miscarriages or severe birth defects, the same technology may be used to choose embryos that contain specific genetic defects responsible for disabilities, such as blindness or dwarfism.

Disabled couples have spoken out against the criticism of the opportunities embryonic screening can afford them, arguing that if one couple can choose to make their children their version of perfection, why can't they choose to have a child that is deaf like them?

After all, who has the right to say their version of perfection is the "right" version? Who gets to decide what kind of baby is the "right kind"? Not so long ago, one man tried to create his version of a master race, and it resulted in genocide. Isn't this the same thing but on a different level? Isn't society doing the same thing by trying to create designer babies? By eliminating "unfavorable" characteristics in the children of tomorrow? Or forcing certain characteristics to appear? Choosing one set of characteristics over another? Where does it stop? Who draws the line?

The line is already blurred. If one couple can choose the sex and physical characteristics of their child, then what stops another couple from choosing to have a child that will be blind or deaf? Isn't that just another manipulation of a physical characteristic?

While some scientists denounce the idea that this kind of genetic manipulation is possible or happening, there is no doubt that if it isn't happening, it will be soon.

There's this thing called nature, and it's worked for billions of years. Maybe we should just let it be.

University a nature reserve, not a garbage can

Staff Opinion

Have you ever noticed how much nature there is on our campus? Noticed how green it is? Or how many animals there are? Have you ever noticed all the garbage that's on campus too?

Garbage at the University of North Florida is everywhere - in the lakes and ponds, on the sidewalks, in the parking lots, overflowing from the trash cans and dumpsters - everywhere. Evidently a lot of people at UNF think garbage cans and recycling bins are just for decoration - things you only throw stuff in when you feel like it.

And those who are littering the campus are not the only ones to blame. The people who walk by the trash and leave it there are to blame, too. Who's responsible for the upkeep of the lakes on campus? Who's responsible for keeping the parking lots and sidewalks clean? Who's responsible for keeping the dumpsters emptied? The university is responsible for those things but we as students, faculty and staff are responsible for it as well because we are part of the campus community. We all have the responsibility to not act like a bunch of 2-year-olds and throw our garbage anywhere except where it belongs.

Yes, there are thousands of people who come to campus everyday and leave behind a lot of trash, and yes, it's hard to keep up with it all. I understand it's impossible to keep the campus pristine - that's not the problem. The problem is the garbage that sits around for days, weeks, months and even years without anyone cleaning it up.

Yes, years. The same garbage has sat around and in some of the lakes since I started attending UNF last fall. Broken fountains, chairs and poster-racks; candy wrappers, Styrofoam cups and beer cans; flip-flops and plastic bags seem to be favorites. All of it has sat around the lakes and the dumpsters of UNF since I started here. Who knows how long it's been there?

You could go out and look at Candy Cane Lake right now and see exactly what I'm talking about - it's all plainly visible.

Take a walk across the bridge that extends over the lake near the mailboxes and you won't even be able to count how many pieces of garbage you'll see in the lake and in the trees. And on a sunny day, you get the joy of seeing all the crap that has been left to sink to the bottom of the lake.

Every day, students, faculty and university staff pass by the garbage in the lakes and around campus and do nothing to clean it up. Maybe no one has raised issue with it before now, but you can't tell me no one has noticed it. Instead, they've just ignored it.

There have been some attempts to stem the littering, like more trash cans and recycling bins, as well as adopt-a-quarter mile programs, but it's obviously not working. The university needs to take a stand and do something about its less than eco-friendly stance on garbage.

I've seen dead ducks and turtles in the lakes and yes, they could've died from natural causes - or it could've been the bottle of cleaner that was discarded in the lake or that Walmart bag that got tossed in last week.

The University of North Florida touts itself as a nature preserve with hundreds of scenic acres and wetlands, so why are they allowing it to be treated like a landfill?

Dungy, Smith make history in Super Bowl XLI

Super Bowl XLI made history before it even began. No NFL team with a black head coach had ever squared off in the biggest professional sporting event of the year. But this year, both Super Bowl teams are led by black head coaches.

Tony Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts and Lovie Smith of the Chicago Bears have risen to the top of their game in spite of persistent notions that blacks lack the intellectual capacity needed to be successful coaches or managers of pro football teams.

"When I came into the league in 1968, they thought a black guy couldn't be the quarterback," Art Shell, the first black coach hired by the NFL in 1989, told the Boston Globe, "You could play tackle but a black guy couldn't play center or guard. Those positions weren't for blacks. They were thinking-man's positions. Same was true of coaches."

Today, 70 percent of NFL players are black, but only three of the league's 32 NFL teams have a black general manager. Only six have a black head coach.

Shell and quarterback Doug Williams, a former Super Bowl MVP, broke color barriers back in the late 1980s, but further advances for NFL coaches and managers of color have been slow in coming.

Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney helped to force the issue when he developed what is now called the Rooney rule. Adopted by the league in 2002, the rule says any NFL team searching for a new head coach or coordinator is required to interview at least one minority candidate.

That has compelled owners to go outside of the comfort zone of the good-old-boy network and into unexpected places where talents like Dungy, Smith, Kansas City Chiefs head coach Herm Edwards and others have been found.

The Rooney rule has made a difference, but the success of Dungy and Smith this year will likely send an even more powerful statement to the culture at large-and to young coaches and players of color.

When I was growing up in the 1960s and '70s, our family always pulled for the teams and organizations that supported black players and coaches. We knew that sports weren't isolated from society. And we understood that important civil rights struggles took place on the playing fields.

Trailblazers like Jackie Robinson and Althea Gibson were symbols of what we all could accomplish, if given a fair chance.

Though the victor of Super Bowl XLI has been declared, in a way, we all won Sunday.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

Letters to the Editor

Another side to 'Turning the other cheek'

The recent article "Turn or burn? Try turning the other cheek" made a barrage of judgmental comments regarding "Christians" who confront people with extreme vigor.

As a Christian, I also cringe when people approach me with a direct message of yelling that I am going to a 'fiery hell' to burn for all eternity. This can happen on the green or anywhere; it has happened to a couple people of another faith separate than Christianity known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

However, it is important to be careful to not lump all Christians into this category of "zealots" who may act like a televangelists "on speed."

Many Christians may not agree with other faiths, but they respect them.

Labeling all Christians as insane torch bearers who "condemn females as responsible for original sin" is a little extreme. Christianity seems to be a major target for many who just want a bone to pick. If you do not want to listen to a person of any faith who comes up to you, then do just what was suggested in the article from Jan. 31. Be respectful, and if necessary turn the other cheek.

I have encountered "holier than thou" atheists, agnostics, and people of other beliefs like Rastafarians. Not all Christians are these insane judgmental hypocrites.

That is not what Jesus, who we believe is our Lord, instructed. Turning the cheek may not always seem rational, but it works as the article suggests.

Universal health care a right, not privilege

There are many things that were not guaranteed in the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers - the right of women to vote, for example. The right of Congress to change the Constitution, on the other hand, is written in it. That's how the 19th Amendment got in there, when enough states ratified that Amendment. That is how the Bill of Rights got in the Constitution. The Constitution and our government has survived over 200 years because the Constitution is a living document and not carved in stone to be unchangeable.

I believe if Raquel Manning bothered to open her eyes so she could see the real world, she would see that Democrats are just as diverse as Republicans. She uses "liberal" as if it were a dirty word, which has long been a bias of conservative groups - including the Facists of World War II. Liberals are those men and women who see a wrong and try to correct it on behalf of the people being wronged - for example, giving the women of the United States the right to vote. Now look at all the trouble that caused: women in Congress, and even some trying to take over the Oval Office.

As far as health care goes, it should be a right in this country just as the right women have to vote. No one in this country should have to decide whether they will go hungry in order to pay for health care. Least of all people who deserve this are the elderly who brought this country out of the Great Depression and World War II. People who pay their taxes perpetually see the government waste their money or invest it unwisely. When the government builds a massive debt it hurts all Americans, especially those on fixed incomes. It is the function of government to take care of those who put them in office, and not the special interest groups that give them the most money.

Print Edition

DISCOURSE

New funding well-intentioned, not timely

Editorial

Genetic decisions best left up to nature

Editorial

University a nature reserve, not a garbage can

Staff Opinion

Dungy, Smith make history in Super Bowl XLI

Letters to the Editor

Another side to 'Turning the other cheek'

Universal health care a right, not privilege

Spinnaker's Best

Spinnaker's Worst

Spinnaker's Fix

Corrections

Print Edition