opinion
Senate should endorse course review plan
Contrary to the beliefs of disco diehards
and sport superfans, maintenance of a
high-quality academic environment re
mains the primary concern of an educa
tional institution.
The University has the opportunity to im
prove this climate soon by endorsing a
proposal that would bring uniformity and
accessibility to student course evaluations.
Such a proposal — the result of more
than a year's vigorous research by an ad
hoc committee — awaits action by the Uni
versity Senate.
The committee s evaluation form, de
signed to allow computer tabulation of re
sponses, would elicit students’ judgments
in five general areas of teaching qualities
demonstrated by each of their instructors.
University departments could add up to six
additional evaluative questions oriented
toward their particular field of study.
Students would rate the various qualities
of each course and instructor through use
of a seven-point scale, ranging from
strongly satisfied to strongly dissatisfied. A
section allowing open-ended written com
ments by students would be forwarded to
professors, if the comments were un
signed, and made available for administra
tive consideration, if signed by the student.
Senate recommendation of the proposal
and its adoption by the University Assembly
would eliminate a hodge-podge of widely
varied survey forms now designed and ad
ministered by each department. The total
cost of the evaluation process would also
be reduced by a single, uniform survey
form.
The University-wide comparability of
evaluations would benefit both the ad
ministration, which uses the data in deci
sions on profession promotion, pay and te
nure, and students, who should be given
access to the statistical results of the evalu
ations.
This latter point — availability of informa
tion for students planning their programs of
study — appears to be a major obstacle in
winning senate and assembly approval of a
revised evaluation procedure.
That it has become so reveals an appar
ent inability by these faculty-dominated
forums to escape a narrow, short-sighted
view of matters in which they have strong,
vested interests.
Some faculty members seem to have
sincere concerns about the applicability of a
general evaluation form to particular
courses. Others believe individual profes
sors should have the option to close the
results of their evaluation to students, a pol
icy that would inject further inconsistency
into the usefulness of the evaluations. The
College of Law faculty recently set the right
example by opening survey results to their
students.
In most cases, however, the real objec
tion stems from a defensiveness about stu
dents using peer judgments in deciding
whether to register for a specific class. Ad
vocates of closing survey results to stu
dents argue that the latter would be gulled
into a flippant evaluation of courses and
professors that would end up as a “popular
ity contest."
The fact that students now know — when
they evaluate instructors — that neither
they nor their fellow students will be able to
take advantage of their collective effort
seems more likely to decrease the serious
ness with which they approach the task.
A further inconsistency in the “no
accessibility” argument lies in faculty
members’ willingness to accept student
evaluations as valid for administrative re
view but invalid for students’ use in select
ing courses.
But, inconsistency aside, we consider the
students’ need to obtain all the information
available on courses to outweigh some fa
culty members’ disinclination to have opin
ions of their skills made public.
All the arguments about inappropriate
survey questions and popularity contests
will not erase the fact that some University
courses are badly designed and taught,
that students know one when they take it
and that other students should have a right
to know about these.
The Senate should recommend adoption
of a uniform evaluation form and, after the
recent example of the College of Law fa
culty, make course-evaluation results
available to students.
vours
Support solidarity
On Nov. 29, the day of solidarity
with the Palestinian people, peo
ple and organizations all over the
world, including the United Na
tions, will celebrate and renew
their support for the struggle of the
Palestinian people against
Zionism and its racist state of Is
rael.
It is a day which recognizes the
just struggle of the Palestinian
people for self-determination and
their right to live in a free democra
tic state in their homeland.
On this occasion it is important
to expose the Carter-Begin-Sadat
conspiracy, which culminated in
the Camp David accords, for its
so-called peace in the Middle
East. No one in the Arab world,
particularly the Palestinian peo
ple, believes that those who
gathered at Camp David were
there to serve peace, but rather
their own self-interest.
For the United States seeks
stability in the area, by any means,
to guarantee the continuous flow
of oil. In this regard we should take
note of what Senator Henry Jack
son stated during his latest visit to
Israel, "After signing the treaty the
two nations (Egypt and Israel)
should form the nucleus of a
mutual defense agreement for the
entire Arab world to defend the
energy sources of the Western
world.”
For Israel the accord would as
sert its hegemony over the Arab
world. (Other confrontation states
would be forced to follow Egypt’s
lead or be threatened by an
Egyptan/israeli force). Also the
treaty would put an end to the
Palestinian question, i.e., the right
of the Palestinian people for self
determination and a democratic
state in Palestine.
For Sadat’s regime the treaty
would put an end to the nationalist
era of Nasser — 1952-1967 —
which witnessed the anti
imperialist movement in the Arab
world, the nationalization of the
Suez Canal, independence from
British colonialism, and support of
the national liberation movements
in Africa and the Arab world that
culminated in ending the colonial
presence in the Arab world.
Also, the treaty would serve as
a prelude to a complete integra
tion of Egypt into the imperialist
market through Sadat’s Open
Door Policy. (Based on a new
class alliance the Open Door Pol
icy would open the country to
foreign interests and its
hegemony). The treaty would also
turn the Egyptian army into a gen
darme in the service of the U.S.
against the people of Africa and
the Middle East as the Egyptian
interference in Zaire and its ag
gression against Libya proved.
One look at the important items
of the treaty reached at Camp
David will clearly show the danger
which it constitutes to the Arab
masses of Palestine and Egypt.
Firstly, it is a separate peace
treaty between Egypt and Israel
attempt to “normalize” relations
between Egypt and Israel at the
expense of the Arab masses and
in particular the right of the Pales
tinians for self-determination.
It should be clear that a “peace
treaty" between Begin and Sadat
might come to be a reality but this
should not be taken as a fate the
Arab masses have to accept.
As we are witnessing in Iran
today, the oppressive regime of
the Shah is crumbling under the
blows of the Iranian masses in
spite of the massive support given
to him by the imperialist camp.
The lessons of history are clear
that oppression and exploitation
need for a national homeland.
Taking the self proclaimed re
sponsibility to lead the struggle for
a homeland is a group called the
Palestinian Liberation Organiza
tion. An organization such as the
P.L.O. can best be described by
their statements and actions.
Dec. 1968 El Al plane at
tacked at Athens; 1 person killed,
1 stewardess wounded.
Feb. 1969 El Al plane at
tacked at Zurich; co-pilot killed,
pilot wounded.
Nov. 1969 Hand-grenade at
tack on El Al office in Athens; 1
Greek child killed, 13 persons
wounded
«
and as such it will completely iso
late the Egyptian masses from the
Arab struggle against imperialism,
Zionism and Arab reaction.
Secondly, Sadat’s talk about
the Palestinian problem or a
comprehensive “peace” is a mere
smoke-screen with which to man
ipulate the Egyptian people and to
further his own role in the Middle
East.
In fact, one of Sadat’s danger
ous tactics which will harm the
Palestinian people even more
than what he had already commit
ted against them is his attempts to
gain self-rule for the Gaza. His
reasoning is that “this could serve
as a model for the more complex
problem of the West Bank.” In re
ality what he is trying to achieve is
a situation where he could split the
Palestinian people and their
cause and to create a Palestinian
puppet to agree with his plan.
We should keep in mind thatthe
Palestinian masses and their lib
eration movement have rejected
the Zionist concept of “self-rule"
or “autonomy” that the con
spirators at Camp David have
agreed to. (How could the Palesti
nians accept a ‘‘reservation
camp” to replace their right of
self-determination and a demo
cratic state!)
Thirdly, it undermines Egyptian
sovereignty. The conditions under
which the Sinai will be evacuated
states that no Egyptian military
personnel can ever be stationed in
the evacuated area. Lastly, it will
may prevail for a while, as the
Shah’s regime did, but in the end
the masses are determined to
gain their freedom and indepen
dence.
Thus, the struggle of the Arab
people will continue against their
historic enemies: Imperialism, led
by the U.S. which continues to
plunder the national resources;
Zionism, which continues its ag
gression and denial of the rights of
self-determination for the Palesti
nian people; Arab Reaction which
collaborates for their self-interest
against the Arab masses.
Only with a people's victory will
there be a just peace in the Middle
East which will be based on fulfil
ling the aspirations of the Palesti
nian people to live in a democratic
state in their homeland (where
Moslems, Christians and Jews
could live together in peace) and a
democratic, independent Arab
world.
Kamal Nasir,
Committee for a Free Palestine
PLO kills peace
Today, Nov. 29, has been pro
claimed by the United Nations as
Palestinian Solidarity day. This
day has been proclaimed as to call
world attention to the Palestinians
Feb. 1970 El Al bus at Munich
airport attacked; 1 passenger kil
led, 8 others wounded
May 1970 School bus from
Avivim bombed in Galilee; 7
adults and 5 children murdered,
19 persons wounded
Sept. 1970 3 planes (Pan
Am, TWA, and Swissair) hijacked
with a total of 400 passengers. All
3 planes blown up.
Nov. 1971 Wafsi Tal, Prime
Minister of Jordan murdered.
May 1972 Lod Airport in Israel
attacked; 27 persons murdered,
80 wounded
Sept. 1972 Munich Olympics;
11 Israeli athletes murdered
Mar. 1973 Saudi Arabian
Embassy at Khartoum attacked;
American Ambassador, his De
puty Head, and Belgian Charge
d’Affaires murdered.
Aug. 1973 Athens airport at
tacked; 5 persons killed, 55
wounded
Dec. 1973 Pan-Am and
Lufthansa planes attacked at
Rome airport; 32 passengers kil
led
May 1974 School at Ma'alot,
Israel; 24 children murdered, 70
wounded
June 1974 A mother and her 2
children murdered at Nahariya, Is
rael
Nov. 1974 Village of Beit
Shean, Israel; 4 civilians mur
dered, 19 wounded
May 1975 Savoy Hotel, Tel
Aviv; 18 tourists murdered, 30 in
jured
June 1975 Kibbutz at Kfar
Yuval; 1 woman, her husband and
her brother murdered
July 1975 Bomb exploded in
main square in Jerusalem; 15 kil
led, 70 wounded
Dec. 1977 Bomb placed on
crowded Netanya street; 2 per
sons killed, 2 injured
Nov. 1978 On anniversary of
Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat’s visit to Israel, a bomb on a
West Bank bus; 4 killed, 37
wounded, bomb in Tel Aviv’s Jaffa
district; 2 Israelis wounded, bomb
in busy intersection of Jerusalem;
bomb defused
Totals to date: Over 1170 killed,
over 2500 maimed and over 2755
held hostage. Jews, Muslims,
Christians, local Arabs, local
Jews, tourists, and Pilgrims all kil
led indiscriminately.
Israel and Egypt both invited a
Palestinian representative to the
Camp David peace talks; none
came forward.
The Palestine Liberation Or
ganization refused to support the
Sadat initiative, which was the first
chance at a Palestinian homeland
that they had.
What has the PLO done about
the peace initiative of Egypt, Israel
and the U.S.? Only more ter
rorism, together with total rejec
tion of the only genuine diplomatic
initiative that ever has existed in
the Middle East or is likely to exist
in the near future.
This blind refusal to deal with
reality allows the Palestinian
cause to go by default and con
demns the refugees to reman in
their camps. Politics is the art of
the possible; the PLO is the
psychology of the impossible.
On a day such as today, with
peace in the Middle East near,
why must a terrorist group such as
the Palestinian Liberation Organi
zation take responsibility for the
solidarity of the Palestinian peo
ple. Oppose murder and ter
rorism, condemn the PLO. Sup
port peace.
Bill Wisdom
Jewish Student Union
Steering Committee member