[caption id="attachment_22754" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Andrew Oh"][/caption]

UCSD police are conducting an investigation after a suspect — who has yet to be found — attempted to kidnap a UCSD student just west of Geisel Library on Friday, May 20 around 8 p.m.

According to an all-campus emergency alert from UCSD police, the student-aged male approached the female victim from behind, placed a paper bag over her head and attempted to drag her off the pathway between the bushes on the side of the library closest to Thurgood Marshall College.

The unidentified victim was able to break free from the assailant and escape.

The suspect is approximately 5’9”, medium-built, light-skinned with curly brown hair and was last seen wearing blue jeans. The suspect fled on foot.

Multiple alerts were sent to students through the Triton Alert System around 10 p.m. the same night.

According to UCSD spokesperson Rex Graham, no new developments have been made since Friday.

The UCSD police department could not be reached for comment. No arrests have been made.

Four-Day School Weeks Proven to be Beneficial

With less money available for education, 120 school districts across the country (and counting) are going so far as redefining the school week to have a three-day weekend, every weekend.

[caption id="attachment_22671" align="alignright" width="198" caption="(Andrew Oh / Guardian)"][/caption]

afasfs

I love winning. Even more than that, I love winning free shit. But I also hate wasting time, and it’s for this reason that I never enter contests hosted by massive, multinational corporations like Coca Cola, who hold essay contests on dramatic, sweeping topics like, “What speaks for your generation?” (Wrong answers: Ke$ha, Rebecca Black, PepsiCo.)

I’ve learned the hard way that any and all time spent on such contests will result in an entry being lost to cyberspace. The six hours you spent drafting the perfect answer (Lady Gaga speaks for my generation, Coca Cola!) will be for naught, as you end up sending it to the wrong email address.

I have also learned that video contests are similarly discouraging. It doesn’t matter if you shoot your Internet Explorer promo video with a Canon 60D and a $3,000 lens kit — your submission will, invariably, be sucker-punched by another scary-cat-lady video.

So, if you’re really in the mood to win, enter small, local competitions. One of my greatest triumphs in life was winning a Facebook contest for one of the best, locally-based chocolate companies in the Bay Area: Recchiuiti Chocolates. The mere fact that they’re based in San Francisco’s Ferry Building is testament to their utter unaffordability. (That, and the $44 you pay for a box of 16 truffles. It’s that good.)

Once upon a boring summer at home, Recchiuti posted a Facebook game in which the first fan to answer a question about the company would win a prize. I was game. I was ready. I was in a manic, oddly focused state. I answered their question about the founder of the company in less than 15 seconds. It was apparently all so strange and hilarious that they felt the need to comment on my speed three times on their Facebook page and once in person.

But that doesn’t matter: I had won two tickets to their ice cream social — a $60 value! My mother, another huge fan, took the second ticket, and we spent the better part of the day gorging ourselves with salted caramel ice cream and freshly-made chocolate ice cream bon bons. All the other suckers there had spent upwards of $80 on their families, kids included (most of whom probably couldn’t even tell the difference between Dreyers and Haagen Dazs. I know I couldn’t when I was younger).

Moral of the story is: keep an eye out for the smaller, local competitions and you’ve got a decent shot. They’re usually advertised on the company’s Facebook fan page or Twitter, and can vary from just being the 20,000 fan to answering a couple of questions first.

The loot might seem sort of insignificant compared to that of those big competitions that you’ve shirked, but when you’re in it for the thrill of the win, the victory’s all the prize you need.

Recent statistics reveal that there isn’t anything “advanced” about most AP students. In 2009, the Department of Education released statistics showing that the proportion of high-school seniors taking advanced courses has tripled in the past 20 years.

But while the number of students enrolled in these courses has increased, all other measures of achievement — including SAT scores, AP test scores and other national assessments of student progress — have either remained stagnant or declined. The numbers, it seems, speaks to the quantity and not the quality of education. The current system is plagued with an overinflation of course content that produces students who, in the end, are ill equipped to handle the challenges of a university-level education.

According to “The Nation’s Report Card,” a periodic assessment of student progress compiled in 2009 by the U.S. National Center for Education, writing and reading levels of graduating high-school seniors have not changed since 1973, though they are graduating with more advanced credit units.

Students are taking advanced courses that are at times not properly or distinctly labeled and therefore are more advanced than they appear. Many have found themselves encouraged by parents and administrators to take these classes, but the proportion of students achieving passing scores on AP exams has been decreasing.

Course naming varies by school district, with no national standard. A 2008 study of 30 schools in Ohio and Michigan found over 270 unique math course classifications.

A single district even offered 10 unique biology courses, from Basic Biology to Bioscience. Some courses were discovered by the New York Times to be more advanced sounding than they actually were — Algebra I was sometimes relabeled as Algebra II.

The mislabeling represents a blatant oversight on the part of the faculty members and teachers responsible for planning course content. And on a higher level, it’s an oversight on the district’s part, as it’s charged with providing the best possible education to its students — a goal that rampant course inflation severely compromises.

Administrators and parents are both likely culprits. The former want to help students satisfy both high-school graduation requirements and college entrance requirements. Parents have higher expectations of course offerings at schools as competition to get into top universities intensifies.

Discrepancies go beyond having the same class labeled differently between schools — there also appears to be variation in textbook content. A 2008 Michigan State University study analyzed math courses and their adjoining textbooks, discovering that a full 15 percent of the textbooks covered mathematics less advanced than the course title suggested.

According to official AP Reports compiled by the College Board, the number of AP exams administered nearly tripled from 1.2 million to 3.1 million between 2000 and 2010. In the same period, the number of failing scores increased from 36.4 to 42.5 percent. While increased participation in advanced placement programs is laudable in theory, the results suggests that many of the students enrolled are no better prepared for college for it.

Title inflation and a poor quality of education leave college freshmen unprepared. According to a 2006 report from the Secretary of Education’s office, over 90 percent of high school teachers believe that students are prepared for college-level writing, but only 44 percent of college officials agree.

The expectation gap wastes students’ time in pricey remedial classes. A United States Education Commission found that 40 percent of all college students are taking at least one remedial course. UCSD’s retention and graduation rates — 87 percent at two years, and a four-year graduation rate of 56 percent — suggest a lack of preparation as well.

There is, however, a silver lining in this “course overload.” Over the past two decades, participation has risen among minority students and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

College Board Vice-President Trevor Packer argues that although some students are unprepared when they’re placed in advanced classes, they are better off than they would be otherwise. What’s most important is that students who attend schools of subpar quality take the most challenging classes on offer, not that they score a five on the final standardized exam.

The current high school graduation requirements set forth by each state’s Department of Education don’t mandate certain course curricula. But there need to be national guidelines that define core content that should be taught in each course so that both districts and schools have a better understanding of what belongs under specific course titles. That clarification will both curb course title inflation and help to regulate the quality of education.

Districts’ textbook selection processes also require reevaluation. Depending on the location, it is up to the school, district or state to choose certain textbooks for academic departments. But no matter who ends up choosing the textbook, there clearly needs to be more thorough review and assessment to make sure that the textbooks adhere to the required course content.

There is a current lack of accountability at the district, administrative and state government levels, all of which need to have a heavier hand in regulating the way teachers go about presenting course content.

This would, in the long run, lead to both a stronger school system and a class of better prepared college students who would be less prone to the first-year GPA drop that students experience at rigorous institutions like UCSD.

Readers can contact Aleks Levin at [email protected].

Blocking Basic Rights is Objectionable

A New York Public Library spokesperson announced on April 23 that it is within the First Amendment rights of adult patrons to view pornography on computers in any of the city’s 200-plus libraries. But despite the obvious moral challenges the policy’s yielded, legally, it’s all there.

According to federal law, the libraries must comply with the Children’s Internet Protection Act in order to retain funding, meaning that computers in the libraries must have filters that block any illegal content, such as child pornography. Patrons over the age of 17, however, can disable the filters if they wish to do so for “research purposes,” and by law, the library cannot censor any legal Web content — pornography included.

If parents are also worried about their children catching a glimpse of objectionable content as they pass on their way to the children’s section, the libraries also provide each computer with a set of dividers and headphones to keep patrons’ computer use as private as possible. These precautions allow patrons their freedom while also providing adequate protection to children.

Though different states have their own laws on pornography, the general rule in the United States is if the act depicted in the pornographic content is legal, then it can be legally sold and viewed. Adults have the right to view pornography; the New York Public Library system is simply acknowledging that fact. This policy does not promote public indecency — it just officially isn’t part of a librarian’s job description to patrol the desktops, looking for images that she doesn’t care to find.

— Chelsey Davis

Contributing Writer

Public Censorship May Be Constitutional

Library officials have argued that patrons have a First Amendment right to view porn on their computers. But because libraries are public facilities that minors regularly enter, this alleged right must be restricted to truly abide by the Constitution.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act requires libraries to have Internet filters on their computers to limit access to child pornography. Patrons above the age of 17, however, are allowed to turn off the filters so they can exercise their First-Amendment rights for unrestricted access to the web — including watching hardcore pornography. I hate to be the one bringing up the “think of the children!” argument, but children looking for Magic School Bus books shouldn’t be subject to catching a glimpse of a raunchy threesome.

There is a constitutional basis for restricting access, too. George Carlin famously uttered “Seven Dirty Words” that the FCC censored, and in the landmark ruling of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s censorship of Carlin. One reason was because children could not be shielded from the patently offensive language. If the Supreme Court deems curse words worthy of censorship, it’s hard to imagine reasonable justification for maintaining full access to pornography in a public, federally funded space.

Consider the alternative. Surely many concerned parents will refuse to let their children enter libraries in light of the controversy, and educating children is of much greater concern than allowing unrestricted public access to porn.

— Saad Asad

Senior Staff Writer

For ten years, Americans awaited the death of Osama Bin Laden. On Sunday, he was finally found and killed by the elite SEAL Team Six. But despite this victory, the fight for American security is far from over.

Many Americans paraded outside the White House Sunday, but the death of Bin Laden does not mean troops will be brought home or that peace has been achieved. Far from it, in fact, as we are still engaged in three wars, and there appears to be no end in sight for terrorist attacks.

Bin Laden’s death is more a symbolic victory than anything else, as he had eluded American forces for so long. His mystique gave the impression that al-Qaeda was impenetrable, but that mystique is no more.

There are a couple tangible gains. The commando group that raided Bin Laden’s compound also retrieved numerous documents and laptops that will be invaluable in stemming the tide of terrorism across the world.

And by authorizing the operation, President Obama has gained significant political clout regarding foreign policy. The Taliban, already demoralized from fighting for so long, will be more likely to make a deal in Afghanistan, and Republican opposition at home will be less inclined to criticize Obama on foreign policy.

Since Bin Laden was caught in an urban center in Pakistan, the heat is also on the Pakistani government for not knowing about this earlier. Pakistan’s embarrassment will allow America to successfully pressure them in engaging more forcefully with terrorists in the northwestern part of their country. After receiving $1.5 billion in U.S. aid, Pakistan must step up its operations against the notorious Haqqani Network, a militia group hiding in Pakistan that has killed many American soldiers.

Nevertheless, al-Qaeda is a decentralized organization — meaning Bin Laden’s death will likely have little effect on terrorism in Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa. Even then, there is also Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s lieutenant, as a clear second-in-command. Bin Laden has already become a martyr for many followers of al-Qaeda, and terrorist groups are plotting revenge.

Only last year, the renowned underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to destroy a plane over Michigan. Last week, German authorities arrested al-Qaeda militants suspected of planning a bombing in Germany. Sixteen people killed by a bomb blast in Morocco were also likely victims of al-Qaeda members. Unless security forces remain vigilant, innocents are at risk everywhere — even with the death of al-Qaeda’s number one.

Celebration is premature as terrorist groups continue to operate freely. The relatively peaceful Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions attest to the fact that al-Qaeda’s ideology is a dying one, but enough extremists still exist to spread violence. Bin Laden’s death is nothing to be scoffed at, but it would be naïve to treat this as mission accomplished.

When I was little, my mother was always quick to remind me: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” What she meant, of course, was that the best deals in life come at a price — whether you accept some stranger’s favor and become their mob bitch (a la “The Departed”), or end up being paid by your roommate to tell embarrassingly tepid jokes in front of her 200-person class so that she can get extra credit.

But when I entered college, I couldn’t really afford to be so choosy. My wallet got a little tighter and my appetite for OVT’s disgusting selections plummeted. (Why, “Meatless Monday?” Why?)

My friends and I instinctively began to seek out what college students love best: free food. We quickly realized that one of the simplest ways to snag a free snack (as close to free as I can get, Mom) was through Sprinkles Cupcakes’ Twitter feed.

Every morning at around 10 a.m., the trendy (read: expensive) cupcake shop updates its Twitter feed and Facebook page with a new “secret” phrase of the day. The first 50 people to whisper that phrase in store get a free cupcake — usually an exclusive flavor of the day that you can brag about to your uninformed friends, like chocolate cake filled with marshmallow cream topped with peanut butter frosting. (Actually, that one was disgusting.)

For those too lazy to sprint to Sprinkles at a moment’s notice, it’s also possible to comment on Sprinkles’ Facebook update, where five people get chosen at random for a free cupcake coupon.

Of course, with 500-plus people commenting every day and only five lucky winners, I really can’t be bothered. I have better things to do with my time, like looking up adorable pug videos on YouTube.

Recently, early morning lines at Sprinkles have been short to nonexistent, other than the occasional junkie purchasing her daily dozen hogging up the line, but it was an entirely different story when the store first opened back in January.

The endless quest for my first Sprinkles cupcake was tainted by three-hour lines wrapping around the store. Very little (besides a cupcake) could soothe my raging anger at the hordes of morose, sugar-deprived patrons. Why did they feel the need to pay $3.50 for a designer cupcake? I wanted to pay $3.50 for a cupcake.

In due time, the lines waned, and my tally of free cupcakes has reached six. I can now get a free cupcake in less than 10 minutes (driving time included!), and I’m no longer interested in paying three dollars for one.

Though I will sometimes go out of my way, I only do so on occasion, and when I actually have time to go. That way, I don’t feel quite so crazy for checking their feed every morning. It’s easier to seem normal when you’re not foaming at the mouth for Irish cream frosting.

By Tritons for Israel

Executive Board

It is with a heavy heart that I begin this piece for publication. Recently Students for Justice in Palestine authored a resolution asking the Associated Student body to call upon the UC Regents to divest the investments of the pension and retirement funds from two American companies because they did business with the Israeli Defense Forces.

We heard at a special presentation how this year’s divestment resolution was “a brand-new resolution” and had nothing to do with last year’s resolution, when in truth 11 of the clauses are exact quotes from last year’s divestment resolution. We were told that this was not meant to target the State of Israel, but rather it was focused on the region as a whole.

Sadly this too was not true, as the State of Israel was the only sovereign country to be mentioned in the resolution, and it was “mentioned” over 17 times. We even heard about how the resolution was meant to foster dialogue, when the only dialogue created around the event was done so by the A.S. President-elect, and not by the proponents of the resolution.

Despite the blatant attack on the State of Israel, and consequently the Israel, and pro-Israel communities at UCSD, Tritons for Israel extended a hand in peace to the leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine in the hopes that some sort of dialogue and compromise could be reached. Two representatives from Tritons for Israel worked tirelessly, despite the Jewish holiday of Passover, to reach a middle ground and bridge the gap between our two respective communities.

On the brink of a historic opportunity, Students for Justice in Palestine retreated to their original talking points, and even failed to recognize the need for cultural cooperation, or the necessity for ensuring the security of both Palestinians and Israelis.

That, however, has become a

? TFI, from page 4

moot point. The question we must ask ourselves is, where do we go from here?

We may never come to an agreement about divestment, but should we allow that to prevent a greater dialogue from happening?

Call me an idealist, but I firmly believe that the things which divide us pale in comparison to those which can unite us. If a compromise cannot be reached surrounding divestment, I feel we should respect each other’s positions, agree to disagree, and search for the common ground we all share.

Has there not been enough suffering on both sides? Now is the time to end this fighting, both on campus at UCSD and in our respective homelands.

Tritons for Israel has always and will continue to stand for peace, dialogue, and justice. Divestment is not the way to a durable peace. Only by speaking to one another can we achieve a true understanding, and build the bridges necessary for a sustainable coexistence. Tritons for Israel hopes that we will someday have a willing partner in the struggle to achieve a sustainable end to the conflict, both in the Middle East and here on our campus.

By Students for Justice in Palestine

Executive Board

This quarter, UCSD Students for Justice in Palestine was organizing a “Resolution to Divest from Companies Profiting from Violent Conflict.” The resolution addressed General Electric and Northrop Grumman, two companies that provide parts of Apache helicopters that have been documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to cause civilian deaths in the Palestinian territories.

The resolution was originally set to be presented on April 20, 2011. In respect to those students observing Passover, specifically those connected with the resolution, SJP leadership agreed to postpone the presentation until April 27, 2011.  On April 22, 2011, five days before the resolution was to be presented, an unaffiliated third party council member arranged for representatives from Tritons for Israel and SJP to meet.

In this meeting, SJP conditionally offered to include certain proposals put forth by TFI in a new draft of the resolution. There were certain core elements of SJP’s mission statement and the resolution that could not be negotiated upon. The representatives of TFI agreed to those terms and the process of outlining a new project continued.  Though members of SJP had spent over two years working on the resolution (in addition to the two years of research done by students at UC Berkeley), SJP agreed to work with the group for the betterment of campus climate. Moreover, despite numerous failed attempts at a joint resolution in the past, SJP took a leap of faith in the spirit of putting forth a more inclusive effort.

After being informed that the board members of TFI were unanimously behind this joint project, representatives of the organizations worked until the early morning of April 27 to draft a statement defining intentions and mutual goals. SJP expressed its unwavering intent to include the companies stated in the original resolution as well as other corporations profiting from the perpetuation of ongoing violent conflict. Furthermore, SJP agreed to the

recommendation of supporting companies that develop both Palestinian and Israeli society. This statement was intended to increase cooperation and communication between members of each community.

On the afternoon of April 27, a few hours before the council meeting, TFI informed SJP that they would not be supportive of the joint statement because the core elements originally agreed upon became widely contested in their community.  By this time, SJP informed the larger community that a new joint project would be pursued and the current resolution would not be presented.

The last-minute nature of TFI’s retraction has demonstrated to the campus community that this level of critical dialogue is not a priority for their organization. Further negotiation on this issue with a group that has disregard for the fundamental aims of the original resolution for corporate responsibility and neutral investments will prove futile. It is evident that SJP’s mission statement of “organizing in accordance with democratic principles to promote justice, human rights and the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people” is also not a priority for the leadership of Tritons for Israel. Above all, the unanswered call for institutional neutrality on the UCSD campus demonstrates a blatant indifference towards the Principles of Community and the moral standards set by this university.

SJP at UCSD expresses their full intention to move forward with divestment in the 2011-12 school year. All members of the UCSD community are welcome to take part in this process.