Weekly Writing 8

It’s disconcerting that the mainstream media focus on documenting the accusatory verbal punches aimed at knocking policy and the public off-track. The rhetoric of fear posited by scientists is hardly better than the dismantling of scientific proof with character attacks favored by conservatives who are against international climate change sanctions that might change the business landscape that has filled their pockets. If the barrage of lobbyists in Washington is any indicator at all, big industries are pressuring our representatives to look the other way when changes are proposed. In fact, based on Jeff Goodell’s recent article in Rolling Stone, many of these lobbyists quote faulty estimates from industry-sponsored studies. Its time that climate change is presented clearly and in a way that normal people can understand.

Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert writes that because climate change lacks the key markers that grab humans’ attention—a clear danger, or a moral or emotional trigger—-we’re essentially immune to viewing it as a current threat to our survival and well-being. It’s a much more abstract phenomenon than unemployment or health care and that much easier to ignore. Because its affects are slow yet dire, its up to journalists, scientists, and policy-makers to recast climate change and give it tangibility and relevance now, when we still have time to make changes.

Letter to The Dean

Dear Dean Powers,


Seattle University's Communication and Journalism Department is a critical link between the university and the community.  The existence of an autonomous department in this discipline has long benefited students and staff by giving them greater freedom to participate in internships, community journalism, private public relations, and publications (like the Spectator).  While the Communication and Journalism department may be one of the smallest on campus, it has wisely and efficiently used its budget to keep its production equipment up to date, send students and staff to conferences, and promote study abroad opportunities beyond Seattle University. 
The University's financial situation is especially trying to the Communication and Journalism Department since its students have historically faced the most competition heading into the job market.  In an effort to maintain the commitment to social justice as well as its student's competitive edge, I believe a healthy compromise can be reached that will ensure that the Comm. Department can continue to offer its students the best possible education while streamlining the programs it offers.
Currently, the department offers three distinct majors, Journalism, Communication Studies, and Strategic Communications.  These majors share a core in rhetoric but then branch out with Journalism and Strategic Communications students focusing on the various aspects of their prospective careers and Communications Studies students focusing on the philosophical and rhetorical implications and aspects of communication.  While the department heavily promotes social justice in its work, it lags in its commitment to leadership and community involvement.  Because students in the department are encouraged but not required to participate in the university's own communication outlets (i.e. The Spectator, KSUB, Seattle University Public Relations) they are missing out on a chance to further link themselves to the community.  By cutting one class from each major and requiring a quarter-long participation in one of the university's existing communication mediums, we would save money while promoting leadership and community involvement. 

Thank you for considering this proposal and we look forward to seeing positive changes soon,

Jamie Wallace

Final Project Cover Memo

Project Title: What’s The Risk—Tripping the Alarm for Climate Change


Genre: Podcasts, Radio Programs

Publication: Public and College Radio Stations

Audience: I’m trying to reach out to citizens who are concerned about climate change but whose interest in the issue may have waned. I want to focus the audience’s attention not on the risks of climate change, but on the way that they think about those risks. Hopefully, this will help to move the climate change debate beyond scientific and political grumblings and increase our understanding of the issue in a way that will move us to action. Ideally, listeners will think differently about climate change after listening to these short programs.

Analysis: Climate change is an abstract issue. I want to bring that issue down to earth and make it conversational and understandable. Because climate change talks usually consist of abstract predictions and figures, it’s easy for people to tune out the real implications of ignoring it. The conversational and personal nature of radio makes the discussion palatable and friendly. Also, because I’m steering the discussion away from the figures and predictions, I hope that the audience will find that they can reach a more nuanced idea of climate change that doesn’t consist solely of financial figures or gloom and doom forecasts.

Letter to Senator Murry D-Wa.

Dear Senator Murry,

As I'm sure you're aware, the impact of the state budget on students who are struggling with tuition costs is of paramount importance right now.  The proposed tuition increases will effectively make higher-education cost prohibitive for many students.  With the dissolution of work study, the larger class sizes, and underpaid professors and staff, I'm beginning to wonder just how much the state values education at all.  When cuts are necessary, it seems like higher education is one of the first institutions to be put on the chopping block.
 An investment in education is an investment in the state and its citizens.  An educated population is far more able to participate in the political process and contribute to the state economy, so why would the legislature focus only on short-term goals when adjusting its spending. 
The very people who the tuition increases will impact most are those who are most dependent on the government for their education.  Without the option of work study, individuals will need to take out more loans, which will limit their future financial contributions to the state and local economy. 
Its time to focus the lens on the big picture and consider the long-term effects of a tuition increase of this magnitude.  I urge you to evaluate other sectors of the state economy before you resort to penalizing those who are seeking higher education.

Sincerely,

Jamie Wallace

Rising Tuition

Remedying state budget shortfalls by raising tuition costs has students, educators, and policy makers struggling to find a middle ground.  Students' concern that they will not be able to pay for their education and the resultant protests mean that lawmakers need to come  up with a quick solution.  Education should be one of the last areas that budget shortfalls touch.  It seems like lawmakers are looking to cut costs in an area that will be the least politically damaging (and offend those with the least political power).  If the state concludes that raising the cost of education is its only option, it should condense universities instead of compromising current educational standards (larger classes, no work study, lower-salaried professors).  By accepting smaller classes with the same demographic makeup as now exists, the policy makers could cut their overall spending without enraging and financially penalizing the student population.  Unfortunately, this is contrary to the goal of educating more citizens and does little to make education more accessible.  Passing the penalty of budget concerns on to students is just not the answer.  Education is an investment, the state needs to realize that the return is far greater than the initial cost.

Problem Solving Letter

Dear Landlord,

Recently, the raccoons in our yard have been out of control.  They are tipping over trash cans, digging up the flower beds and being a general nuisance.  Not only am I concerned about the mess that they're causing on the property, I also fear for the health and well-being of the residents and neighborhood pets, who are kept up by the raccoons late-night antics.  Based on the trail of garbage and the frequent rustling and squealing noises, I've determined that the raccoon den is under the porch of our building (this would also account for the small dead rodents that we've been picking up near the front door).  The possibility of disease is also a worry since raccoons have been know to become rabid and bite humans.  The animal control department directed me to contact you and I'm hoping that you'll address this problem soon be it with traps, poison, or den relocation. 

Thank you for sharing this concern,

Jamie Wallace

The Onion Bans Tolerable Relationships

The Onion beautifully satirizes the anti-gay marriage movement in their, "New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other" video. Implying that separate beds, stunted conversations, and sexless existences make loveless couples less qualified for marriage than couples who are in love takes the gay marriage debate and makes it seem silly and trite. Its very funny in the way that it takes a serious debate and places the same argument in a different contextual arena in order to break it down.