As finals week winds down, we at the Port Side are bringing our ship into harbor after a semester of exciting events and groundbreaking stories and coverage by our staff. Since we will be going on about a month long hiatus during Winter Break, I think now would be a good time to look back at some the highlights from our publication this semester.
On the print side, the Port Side published two issues in October and December. Our October issue covered stories such as the shortcomings of Claremont McKenna’s Kravis Center, an interactive look at the ASCMC budget, and the redistricting of Claremont’s congressional district. In December, we examined student debt and extravagant spending on college campuses, Middle East activism in Claremont, and the unionization efforts of Pomona’s Workers for Justice.
Our website underwent unprecedented growth as we produced regular content covering issues important to the campus community. Two regular web columns (Michelle Lynn Kahn’s “Schweinerei” about her experiences in Europe and Quinn Chasan’s “Quinn Goes to Washington” detailing his time on CMC’s Washington Program) kept readers informed about Claremont students outside the bubble. We covered national stories such as the Occupy Wall Street movement and the GOP Presidential Race. In September, when the Republican candidates debated in Simi Valley’s Reagan Library, we got press credentials and covered the event alongside the professional press corps. We also featured international stories about unrest in Syria, riots in Egypt, and women receiving the vote in Saudi Arabia.
On campus, we kept readers up to date on important developing stories. We covered controversial party themes, the CMC housing crunch, and the locked down Kravis Kube. When Condoleezza Rice came to visit CMC, we reported on all the details leading up to the event from the planned protest and its defense to the venue change from the Athenaeum to Ducey Gym. During the event, we dispatched multiple reporters to various locations and provided live video and twitter coverage. Afterward, we investigated Pitzer Professor Dan Segal’s claim that he had been censored. At the same time, we were covering developments in Pomona’s termination of its dining hall workers. We provided live coverage of the dining hall boycotts and Alexander Hall Vigil. After Pomona fired 16 of its workers, we covered the ensuing protest and arrests. We announced that the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against the College and covered the ASPC student forum where President David Oxtoby defended his administration’s actions.
Next semester, we look forward to building on our success this Fall and continuing to report on stories important to the Claremont community in a timely and thorough manner. When you come back to campus in January, continue to look to our website for coverage of pressing issues. Like us on Facebook to receive our stories in your News Feed and follow us on Twitter for updates. In the Spring, we are also planning to publish three print issues. So keep your eyes on the newsstands!
Thanks for reading and engaging with us this semester. We look forward to continuing to serve you as your compass, navigating you through waves of campus, national, and international issues.
If you are interested in contributing to the Port Side, by writing, taking pictures, or illustrating, we would love to hear from you!
On campus issues, the Port Side took on a decidedly whinny tone this semester. Whether bloviating on the “flawed” Kravis Center, complaining about a second semester housing crunch that didn’t materialize, vexing over the initial Living Room hours, conjuring conspiracies to keep students off the grass, criticizing nationally recognized student aid programs at Scripps and CMC, or carping over moving the Condi speech from the Athenaeum to Ducey, trivialities were breathlessly pumped up with CMC was cast as either incompetent or conniving. There was nothing progressive about this editorial approach – just an attention seeking style that mimicked what we had hoped had passed when CJ departed. Here’s hoping the Port Side returns to the thoughtfulness on campus issues of previous years.
#1: The Kravis Center has flaws. As a progressive publication, the Port Side was right in reporting the flaws, especially considering the large sum of money CMC spent on the building. Notably, the Claremont Independent also published an article on the flaws. Are they whiny too? What’s wrong with pointing out reality?
#2: The students at CMC had the right to know about the latest developments in DOS’s stance on the housing crunch. By presenting emails otherwise solely sent to off-campus students, the Port Side brought the issue to the attention of a larger audience. And yes, it’s great that the housing crisis didn’t materialize. But students were really concerned about it; and the more transparent the process, the better. At least they got information.
#3: Do you seriously think that the administration would have budged (or ASCMC would have pressed them so hard) had student voices like ours as articulated in the Port Side not have rallied support for an extension of the Living Room hours? While we may have been just one voice among many, it takes many voices to create change.
#4: I have no idea what “conspiracy” you think the Port Side was “conjuring” to keep students off the grass. Maybe you should go back and read that post again to see what message — if any — it was conveying.
#5: Yes, the financial aid programs at Scripps and CMC are good. But improvements can be made to even the best of programs. Why should students affected by these programs not seek to improve them, if given the outlet of a newsmagazine?
#6: The Port Side provided ample coverage of Condoleezza Rice’s visit, a mere part of which was the move from the Athenaeum to Ducey. We posted a letter to the editor from the Athenaeum fellows, who wanted to use our forum as an outlet for their views. We then determined, after the fact, that the move to Ducey was unnecessary. This was a news-based approach, not “carping over” anything.
To address your final point, of the Port Side pointing out problems on CMC’s campus and offering solutions to fix them: there ARE problems at CMC, and they DO need to be fixed. It is a good thing that students, through the outlet of a campus publication receiving increasingly widespread circulation, should be able to voice their opinions about making improvements in the academic and living environment. Moreover, I challenge you to find a single print article that did not include the opinion of a CMC official. And I would also like to remind you that much of what the Port Side publishes online is explicitly opinion–the opinion of its author in most cases.
As a former Editor-in-Chief of the Port Side, who helped with the transition from solely political content to more campus-based journalism, I am proud of this semester’s Port Side staff and their commitment to progressive coverage of campus issues. I believe that our staff, more than ever before, has contributed to the campus dialogue in a constructive way. If you have problem with that, that’s your right. But do not misconstrue our coverage this semester as attention-seeking conspiracy theories that trump up real issues that students care about.
OK, I’ll bite:
1: There was nothing “progressive” about the Port Side’s fixation on the few defects that were to be expected at the opening of a new complex building like Kravis. Given the articles, readers were misled to believe the entire building was a mess. Your concern about CMC’s money is moot – the contractor needs to fix the few defects at no cost to CMC. Yes, the CI was whiny on this too and no, the Port Side wasn’t pointing out reality by dwelling on the flaws – reality requires balance which Port Side sorely lacked in its reporting. Perhaps this article will help you gain some perspective: http://california.construction.com/california_construction_projects/2011/1205-kravis-center-raises-the-bar-on-innovationkravis-center-raises-the-bar-on-innovation.asp
2: No, students have don’t have the right to know about the latest developments in how the DOS is dealing with a particular issue – they have the right to how DOS decides to resolve an issue. All the publishing of the DOS emails will do is encourage DOS keep issues under wraps until they have a fully baked solution. Port Side is not helping transparency here by making accusations while the DOS figuring out what to do.
3: This a great example of your bias – you don’t think the administration or ASCMC would act in the students’ interest without your “Locked Up” article. That’s hubris. Clearly the issue with the Living Room was a malfunctioning locking system and figuring out how best to manage the use, not some nefarious desire to lock it away from students as your slanted reporting represented.
4: Perhaps you should read your caption again: “The sign keeping students off of the Kravis Center’s grass” when the unobtrusive ground level 4×6 inch sign asks everybody to please use the walkways and does not keep any students off the grass.
5: To complain about the financial aid program at CMC and Scripps is plain and simple whining. Nobody is picking up your torch to improve these already outstanding programs. Move on.
6: The Port Side’s “determination” that the change in location was unnecessary flies in the face of the Rove experience. Just listen to Dan Segal speak on your site about his right to protest wherever on the 5Cs he pleases and any rational person would recognize he and his fellow travelers would have done whatever they needed to disrupt the event in the glass walled Ath. Just because they couldn’t do that at Ducey doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have done it at the Ath. The Port Side’s reporting on Rice was its opinion, but don’t pass it off “news based” – your starting to sound like Fox.
Closing paragraph 1: What solutions did the Port Side offer on any of the issues above? What advice did it have on how to open a complex building like Kravis in a flawless state, handle the multitude of variables that figure into second semester head count, repair the Living Room locking mechanism, fix financial aid programs that aren’t broken, and prevent the same people who disrupted Rove’s visit from doing the same to Rice? Sure the Port Side gets some quotes from CMC, but then it dismiss what they say. At this point, why would anyone at CMC want to speak with your staff given the bias in your articles?
Closing paragraph 2: The Port Side will be about as relevant as what’s his name if you stay on this sensationalizing tack.
I can tell that I’m not going to win you over by any rational argument. But if we’re upsetting apologists like you, then I think we’re doing a pretty good job. Have a lovely break.
I’m not sure I understand the problem with being “whiny” (which, I might add, is a really ugly-looking word). If you want plain facts, go to wikipedia. If you want events contextualized, you look at the news. One of the easiest ways to contextualize something is by comparing it to something else (whining). The official CMC website already brags about everything, so the portside takes the opposite view. Whether or not such views are well-substantiated is far less important than their expression in the first place. Such ideologic expression allows for dialogues such as these which, although highly frustrating, do help us all understand the issues better.
As far as my article goes (point 4 for reference), I was a little surprised that it was published. It is obviously not journalism in any sense, and it quotes Rick Perry for good measure. To me, the value of the article is the context it provides for environmental discussions about California. For me, a Massachusetts native, the idea of grass as a status symbol is strange and disconcerting because it was something that was always in abundance. By drawing attention to the importance of grass in California, I attempted to contextualize something I didn’t understand. I know that there are other people who come from lands of plentiful grass, so I thought they might be interested by my viewpoint. I’m sorry that you were not among them.
I can’t even begin to express how much I appreciate the Port Side’s coverage this past semester. Studying abroad can make staying current with on-campus issues rather difficult, but the Port Side made it possible to do so.
Excellent work all!
Thanks, Jon! We’re looking forward to having you back on the team next semester.