Stephen VasciannieONE PURPOSE of writing a newspaper column must be to stimulate discussion. Generally, therefore, columnists should be heartened when their contributions prompt public responses in the form of letters to the editor. The columnist has touched a nerve, a point of controversy, an area of uncertainty, and this has moved someone to put pen to paper in response.
Rarely, though, will the columnist have feelings of self-satisfaction upon reading the response he has provoked. Sometimes, the columnist may be made to feel small because, in the course of a particular column, he has made an error of fact and this is publicly, and sharply, exposed. At other times, the columnist's judgment is seriously questioned: she/he is shown to lack balance, or to be unfair, at least in the mind of the respondent.
The newspaper is probably pleased when letters come flowing in: the debate on particular issues demonstrates that the paper is a part of the flow of events, and that, like the columnist, it is touching nerves. This, of course, is the business of newspapers: last week, it was not easy to find a copy of The Gleaner with the front page picture of Emancipation Park. The Editor must have been pleased with his scoop, even though the underlying story was, if anything, extremely sad.
It may be, however, that some respondents are now easier to stimulate than in times past. The facility of e-mail has reduced the level of effort required to put forward one's views. If a column touches a point of concern, I can respond almost immediately no need to find a stamp, no need to travel to the paper, no need to worry that my response will have lost its topicality by the time it reaches the Editor's desk. Thus, one notices, with interest, that Chester Burgess' important exposition on declining standards in the use of the English Language has prompted responses from as far afield as Japan written in impeccable English, to be sure.
EDUCATION
In recent times, my columns on high school performance have evoked both public and private responses. One letter writer suggests that I have used the column in a subtle way to promote my alma mater, Kingston College. Although, generally, I do try to support Kingston College, I disagree with the writer's suggestion: my columns of August 4 and 11, 2003, provided a ranking on schools based on performance.
The fact that KC placed 12th and 3rd in this ranking for CXC English and Mathematics can only reflect bias if my methodology is deliberately flawed. The letter writer did not show that it was flawed, and his implication that I would deliberately manipulate figures to place one high school ahead of others is unbecoming. For the record, in the previous year, Kingston College placed 21st and 10th in the ranking for the same subjects; I heard no accusation of bias then, even though the method of calculating the rankings was the same in 2002 as in 2003.
GRADE ONE
Two other writers have suggested that the CXC rankings for English and Mathematics could be modified to reflect the fact that not all passes are the same. Thus, it is said that I should introduce a weighting scheme that gives more points to passes at the Grade One level over passes at Grade Two and so on. This merits consideration. My fear, though, is that the ranking could become unduly cumbersome, and it would be difficult for readers to check quickly whether my calculations are correct. Under the present approach, if 98 per cent of the students at Campion pass English Language, and 94 per cent pass at Immaculate, we can at least have a rough guide as to performance at these schools for purposes of comparison.
Some respondents also pointed out that the schools start at different levels, and so, the performance at individual schools is not a full measure of value-added. I agree, and have said so repeatedly. One or two other persons privately raised the question of the pupil/teacher ratio as a factor in explaining differential performance in high schools. The Jamaica School Profiles 2000-2001, published by the Ministry of Education, tends to suggest that differences in pupil/teacher ratios are not decisive in most instances: I will consider this in detail at a later date.
Finally, there was a strong response to my column on the foolish approach to false starts now sanctioned by the IAAF and, more specifically, on the treatment of Jon Drummond at the World Championships in Paris. A friend took me to task, but hardly changed my perspective. His basic argument seems to be that the rule of law must be preserved; my basic argument is that there can be no peace without justice. These two propositions were in conflict on the track for the 100 metres. I still say that we must shout loudly when injustice is perpetrated before our very eyes, even if this might offend the "rule of law" crew.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law and Head of the Department of Government, UWI; he is a consultant in the Attorney-General's Chambers.
