While we appreciate your comments, we respectfully disagree that we should refrain from including political perspectives in this blog. Perhaps we were not clear in our presentation of the blog or for the purpose of blogging in class. We believe that the blog should represent our perspectives and views and that it is an opportunity to discuss breaking news in global health. In a recent Daily Tarheel article (“Professors weigh impact of sharing political views,” September 18, 2009), the chair of the Department of Political Science supports our approach. “(Evelyne) Huber said that when professors disclose their personal politics, it promotes intellectual inquiry and presents an opportunity for active debate with their students.”
So in this first blog, which compared the global health positions of our two Presidential candidates, I offered my own perspectives on the article that was written in The Lancet. We support blogging as a tool for you to better know me and when you blog, for us to get to know you. It is a chance to stimulate dialogue among ourselves, and when we disagree, that is OK!
Also, we hope that students and others will feel comfortable posting comments with their names, with no fear of retribution or favoritism.
2 comments:
Regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, we can all agree that the issues are far to complex to attempt an oversimplified solution. Ongoing evaluations of legislated programs is essential to redirecting policy. A recent student proposed research on Medicaid D, the literature incited many in the course against politicians when the facts of who was getting the most economic benefit was revealed (and it was not the elderly client nor was it the small independent pharmacy). Solutions have to be as thought out as the problem........a finger in the damn will not save the inevitable flood that will occur especially when the torrids of rain come.
Post a Comment