CNN Commentary

I read Roland Martin's commentary today about the repercussions of the Jeremiah Wright issue for Republicans. I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. Here's a clip:

For [conservatives], Wright's "hate" was a stench. Their "hate" comes up smelling like roses. But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors' oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, "Please, watch what you say. I don't want to have to denounce you on national television."

His main point is that white pastors across the country have said things as crazy as what Jeremiah Wright has said. Thus, Republicans should be scrutinized for their affiliation with radical leaders just as Barack Obama has been over the past months. I would agree with that premise, but in practice I would probably disagree with Martin on which comments should be scrutinized. There are a lot of things publicly said by Christian pastors that get ripped apart by the media elite, like Martin, whereas I agree with many of those things being said. True, there are some instances in which pastors have made absurd comments that should be rebuked, but that is not common. In Obama's case though, Wright has been consistently un-Biblical and has spewed racist words for many years. Since Wright has a long history of the racist ideology of victimhood and refuses to change his tune, he should certainly be scrutinized. Just as importantly, Obama should be scrutinized for keeping such company for twenty years. It is a legitimate question to ask how much a man like Wright can impact a presidential candidate's ideology. Overall, I am split on this article. You can read the full article here.

GPA Inequity

I have long thought that the GPA system at Mizzou is unfair to the highest achieving students. I finally decided to do something about it, so I emailed three of my professors and the MU Chancellor. Here was my letter to the Chancellor:


Hi,

I am a sophomore Finance major here at Mizzou. I am writing to you because I believe the GPA system is an inequitable system that hurts the highest achieving university students. My problem with Mizzou's GPA system is that A- grades are given a lower than 4.0 score whereas A+ grades provide no benefit. Any student who receives a B-, C-, or D- can make up those grades with a B+, C+, or D+ because those three "plus" grades are given extra weight in the GPA system. When I was a freshman, I earned an A+ in a five credit hour Spanish course. However, I received only equal weight on my GPA as any student who earned a flat A. Yet, when I earned an A- the next semester in multiple courses, my GPA irrevocably dropped below a 4.0. That simply is not a just representation of my academic success. If I can be docked GPA points for an A-, then I should be given more than a 4.0 for an A+. However, I am sure that the university does not want to inflate scores above a four point scale, so I propose that the university change the weight of an A- to simply 4.0. Essentially, the current system promotes underachieving because students have no incentive to achieve maximum success. After all, reaching great success of an A ultimately provides the same reward as maximum success of an A+. Educational systems should provide incentives to promote academic success instead of inhibiting it. If this is ever changed, it would be great if Mizzou retroactively boosted all current students' GPAs according to the new standard.

I hope you thoughtfully consider this change,
Michael Alexander


My first two replies from professors were, "I already stated in the syllabus how I'm grading. It is not going to change." Hopefully I get a different response from the Chancellor or my other professor. I'll keep you updated on it.