Ohio University has been taking a lot of criticism lately. From tuition and technology hikes, to buying an airplane-public relations have not been ideal during the school's bicentennial year. But OU administrators can at least take solace in the fact that they are not actively and publicly selling out their students and graduates like a certain institution an hour to the north beginning with The.
The Ohio State University and the OSU Alumni Association recently signed a deal with credit card company MBNA for exclusive rights to information about more than 400,000 students, faculty and alumni. In return for $1.3 million per year, the two will provide names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses to the financial giant. The contract is technically only with the Alumni Association, but OSU likely will participate. OSU President Karen Holbrook defended the decision by saying the contract will help provide students with the right information about credit and will limit other credit card exposure on campus. Miami University has a similar contract with Bank One that will pay the school $3.25 million over five years.
This contract is shameful from both an ethical and fiscal standpoint. While legal, OSU is betraying the trust of its students and alumni by making a profit through selling personal information. And in terms of this actually being helpful to students, it simply will increase the constant flow of junk mail and spam that is pumped into universities daily. For Holbrook to say that this deal will help students is ridiculous. MBNA is not making this deal to help OSU students become better consumers; they did it to get rich quick and drown unknowing college students in a sea of debt. Instead of honoring the confidence its customers should expect, OSU is auctioning off something that does not belong to them to the highest bidder.
And what a poor bid it is. For about $3 per name per year, MBNA can bombard an unwitting person with an incessant flow of advertising through mail, phone calls and e-mails. Miami's deal, at less than a million dollars per year, is even worse. If institutions could solve their budgetary woes, and, more importantly, reimburse students with the money won at their expense, these contracts would be palatable. But $1.3 million is chump change floating around in Holbrook's couch cushions for an institution like OSU, and it is doubtful students will get any tangible benefits from the new revenue.
Ohio University, for all its troubles, effectively banned credit card merchants from its campus when it bought the Oasis, eliminating these merchants of debt's final stronghold. OSU is making a poor decision both monetarily and ethically, and hopefully other state universities will not follow its lead.
Segregation hurts, no matter the form
In 1954, segregation in schools was struck down by the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case. Who could have known then that 50 years later segregation law would face such a puzzling and morally ambiguous test? The Supreme Court will review California's practice of bunking new inmates with members of their respective race.
Garrett S. Johnson, a black inmate incarcerated in 1987, was segregated by race each time he changed prisons and when he initially entered the system. A 1968 case prohibited segregation in prisons, but allowed for wardens to take race into account on a case-by-case basis. That decision somewhat clarifies this case. The segregation is flawed, and in this case the current laws seem to preclude the institutional decisions that the prison system regularly makes.
Of course there can and must be exceptions. Inmates who have committed racially motivated crimes must be kept away from potential targets, and wardens must bare this in mind and actively notice these issues when assigning rooms. But it seems that any division based on race creates a dangerous precedent. One could argue that such divisions will prevent violence, but the blanket rules could also act as a double-edged sword, with racial division perhaps spawning newfound racism and cementing the existing racial divisions in prisons. Any sort of segregation would seem to act as a breeding ground for new members to be recruited into the sinister prison gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood that are so prevalent in prisons today. The Supreme Court needs to honor the body's previous decision and side with Johnson on this matter. While giving the prisons ultimate say on their room assignments, widespread segregation in any form seems to hurt more than help.
17 Archives
