Press "Enter" to skip to content

Campanil proposition guide misleading

Wow. And not in a good way. How can a school that prides itself on being so progressive present something so blatantly uneducated? Does anyone at The Campanil realize the problem of publishing complete nonsense in such a crucially important and influential article? I am talking about the California Proposition Guide in the 10.27.08 edition. Unfortunately, this letter will not be published until after the election when the damage of a flawed argument has already been done. True, this is published in the OpEds section, but it is not filled with voting recommendations as one would look for in an editorial. Instead, it is presented as an objective overview. Unfortunately, the majority of the proposition summaries and pro/con statements are grossly inaccurate. I would have hoped for an educated guide, especially when compiled by the editorial coach and presented as though it were an objective look at the propositions.

Since I don’t have space to discuss all of them, I would like to focus on Propositions 5, 6, and 9. Let’s start with Prop. 5: if passed, it would provide drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration for people convicted of nonviolent drug-related offenses. Instead of stating the facts, the jumble of vague words printed in The Campanil over generalizes and implies all sorts of fictitious statements. Prop. 6 would try 14 year-olds as adults. Somehow that wasn’t mentioned either. Seems like an important “detail” to leave out.

The worst one of all, however, is Prop. 9. After reading this completely incorrect summary on such an important measure, I lost quite a bit of respect for The Campanil. Prop. 9 is not about victims’ rights. That’s creative naming like “pro-life” or “no child left behind.” Anyone familiar with those terms? If passed, Prop. 9 would make the default parole denial period 15 years. In other words, a person who serves 15 years of their 15-to-life sentence and has a hearing in front of the parole board for the first time would be denied another hearing for 15 years as the default. (And for those of you who are not familiar with the horrifying Three Strikes and You’re Out law, educate yourselves – it will give you an idea of the California criminal laws and the importance of reading carefully.) Opponents don’t say “it is unnecessary” like The Campanil states. Opponents say this measure is heinous. It seems to me as though no one here has read any of the propositions and instead this misinformation was copied off some ridiculous flyer.not what I would call responsible journalism, to say the least. How disappointing.