Y N O F
City College San Francisco The Guardsman

NewsIndicator
OpinionsIndicator
ArtsIndicator
FeaturesIndicator
SportsIndicator
ComicsIndicator
CalendarIndicator
StaffIndicator
ArchivesIndicator
Journalism DepartmentIndicator
Journalism Department
Journalism Department
Journalism Department

Volume 142, Issue #5



Opinions

A SAFEGUARD FOR ATHLETES

STAFF EDITORIAL

A few weeks ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger signed AB2165, a bill that will prohibit college athletes convicted of a violent felony from playing college sports. The student will be eligible to play again after he or she completes the entire term of incarceration and any supervised parole or probation.

Some police officials around the state are saying the new legislation is a common-sense bill, since crimes committed by college athletes have been a big problem in recent years; arrests on suspicion of murder, rape, felony assaults and other violent crimes have been making headlines more than wins and home-runs.

College athletes are breaking the law at a high rate. Research published by the Journal of Sport and Social Issues showed that 19 percent of male athletes from selected colleges were accused of sexual assault. Nevertheless, some California coaches ignored the backgrounds if the players’ presence on the team could guarantee a win. A few years back, for example, a Pasadena City coach tried to recruit a prison inmate to play football.

Sports can be intense. It is not uncommon for players to get angry with the competing team, referees or even audience members. Thus, prohibiting people with a history of violence is a good idea if it protects others.

Everybody deserves a second chance, but college coaches should definitely consider a player's background and overall behavior. Playing sports on campus is not a right — it's a privilege that should be given only to those who pay their debts to society in full.

e-mail: editorial@theguardsman.com


BIG BROTHER BULLIES REPORTERS

BY JOHN SERVATIUS

STAFF WRITER


BRIAN BLYZNUIK / SPECIAL TO THE GUARDSMAN

The problem is as old as the free press and English common law; the public’s right to know balanced with the government's obligation to punish wrongdoers and a reporter’s right to keep anonymous sources.

San Francisco Chronicle staff writers Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada — the latest in a number of ink-stained wretches — were charged with contempt of court and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison, pending appeal, for refusing to name the source(s) of San Francisco Giants' great Barry Bonds’ grand jury testimony. In their book, "Game of Shadows," the co-authors detail the alleged steroid use and other personal issues of the baseball legend.

A legislative remedy for the continuing plight of journalists, in the form of S.2831, the "Free Flow of Information Act of 2006." Introduced by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) in Congress May 18, the bill would have prohibited federal courts from forcing reporters to disclose their sources in criminal and civil matters.

But troubling exceptions allow prosecutors other means of coercion: alternative ways of obtaining the desired information when timely notice is given beforehand; the reporter witnessed criminal activity; the information is necessary to protect national security.

Fortunately, the legislation stalled in the judiciary committee on Sept. 20, because of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's objection, which called the national security safeguards in the bill inadequate.

"National Security" is a buzzword and catchall bandied about in this post Sept. 11 climate. This bill is poorly written legislation, a paltry attempt to enact a national journalistic shield law and should be defeated.

In the meantime, who's next?

e-mail: jservatius@theguardsman.com


A SAFE-HAVEN FOR SMOKERS
BY LARRY SIMPSON
STAFF WRITER

Executive Director of CannaCare Steve Sarich holds one of the clone marijuana plants he's grown for people who use marijuana for medical purposes. CannaCare is based in Everett, WA.

COURTESY OF MCT CAMPUS

According to the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report, 786,545 were arrested for marijuana related charges, an increase of almost 200,000 since 1995.  The conflict has only increased in the decade since the Compassionate Care Act created something of a legal umbrella protecting the infirmed, as well as the casual user in need of protection from his or her government.

In the Bay Area responsible citizens can go about their business of procuring cannabis with a veil of safety unheard of in most places.

California marijuana users have a rare obligation compared to pot smokers elsewhere in the United States. When California voters passed Proposition 215, a line was drawn in the sand.

Scarcely a day passes without news of federal raids on cannabis clubs and farms. Is the lack of public outcry typical stoner apathy, or have we overestimated the great democratic measure? Is it time to protest, or to roll a fatty and read “The Burning of Rainbow Farm: How a Stoner Utopia Went Up in Smoke,” while kicking back in the house that gentrification built?

The man has been busy, but what have the positive people of San Francisco been up to? How many of you who are reading these words smoke, eat or otherwise consume marijuana? How many of you hold a cannabis card?

You don't have to read an editorial to figure out how to protect your rights. Otherwise, being charged one day might sober you up.


e-mail: lsimpson@theguardsman.com


INCOMING

Faculty Poll
Should students with felonies be allowed on college sports teams?

Yes: 7 out of 12
No: 5 out of 12


“To me, if a personcomes out of prison, they are not bad all their life. If you give them a chance to be a positive influence in the community, then OK. Why put another roadblock in front of them? "
— Steve Kiser, photography dept.

“No, a felony is a serious crime. For the safety of players, it might be best not to expose players to that potential violence. But if it's a felony not including a violent act against another person, then OK. If I had a child on a team, I would not like him to play on a team against someone who has murdered. "
— Patricia Arack, ESL


ON THE RECORD

Should journalists be forced to reveal their confidential sources?

Joshua Landicho
“No. That would defeat the idea of confidentiality. Confidential sources should be upheld."



Kieth Brown
“No, especially if the source's life is in danger. "



Latika Solanki

“It might depend on the case. If it has to do with something criminal, then yes. But if it's not important, then no. "


Shane Wyenn
“I feel like there's a moral obligation to reveal their sources, but not a legal one."


Barry Capiaux
“No, I don't think so. If it's confidential, it'll take away from a source's liability, but they should still be able to keep it confidential."


Les Wright
“Absolutely not. A free press in the United States is part of the check and balances against government abuse. We have to assume the bottom line is interity and good faith. Free press is independent, and independence ceases to exist with revealing confidential sources."


BLUE NOTES

BY JOHN GOINS
Editor

I don’t know when I first realized that my brother was ill. No epiphany occurred to make me aware of his condition. The slow disintegration of his personality revealed itself incrementally through time.

He loathed me with a mocking hatred that I’ll never understand, and I – in turn – hated him, though I secretly longed for his affection. After all, he was my oldest brother. 

Approximately 2.5 million Americans suffer from schizophrenia, the National Mental Health Association reported on its website.

The stigma of someone going crazy ran deep in the black community where I was from in the south east section of Washington D.C. It’s a southern town, culturally, and many of the parents in my neighborhood — including my own — migrated from the South where “crazy negroes” were lynched or consigned to chain gangs. This is not ancient history.

Ogee was 15 or 16 when he quit school and stopped caring about his hygiene and going outside. And I was ashamed of him.

According to the National Mental Health Association, half of the people diagnosed with a mental disorder exhibit signs of the disease by age 14, but few receive treatment.

I know that he didn’t — not for a while.

I was in high school. It annoyed me to see my mother peeping nervously through the curtains every time a car passed by. Ogee was coming home. He had smacked my mother the last time she saw him, and I had a steak knife in my back pocket under my shirt – just in case.

He was sedated on Thorazine when he shuffled through the door: dead eyes, slack jaw, reed thin.

 My mother welcomed him with open arms — of course


e-mail: asstnewseditor@theguardsman.com