At the gym this morning, I read a very interesting article on Bend's local school district in our weekly newspaper. It talked about how the school district is discussing the idea of naming local schools' football fields and gyms after large corporations, in exchange for a sizable donation of course. The Chairman of the board is quoted as saying that it is a great way to raise money, while others on the board point out a conflict of interest between the public and private sector.
I can't help but see both sides of this issue. I love the idea of using big corporation's money to help better educate students. I mean, why would any school district (who are all hurting for money) turn down easy money?
On the other hand, however, it some sorta strange that a high school football field would be named after a cooperation. I mean, it just seems so impersonal and strange that a cooperation would have their name involved with a public school.
I think this hits on a pretty intense subject in our culture today. It seems that everywhere you look there are instances of cooperate greed infiltrating our culture and art. There's Mountain Dew starting a record label, Saab sponsoring This American Life, Saul Williams allowing his awesome song to be used in a Nike commercial, etc. Everywhere you look, you can't help but notice big coperation trying new ways to reach consumers.
Now, not all of these things are bad as Saul so eloquently. But I have to wonder, if Mountain Dew is starting a record label, do they really care about high art? Or are they just trying to sell more of their product? If Saab is sponsoring a public radio show, does that mean the show can't report on how little the auto industry is doing to minimize our dependence on oil without fear of losing their big money backer? And while I understand and (somewhat) agree with Saul's decision allowing Nike to use his song, I can't help but wonder if that, in some way, he is looking the other way to Nike's horrendous human rights violations.
Please understand, I'm not judging anybody. With these issues, I'm having a very hard time deciding which side of the fence I come down on. If the Mountain Dew label offers a way for a hip-hop group to market their music, then that is a good thing. If Saab is willing to support an amazing public radio show, then that show has every right to use that money to continue making more great shows. And if Nike is willing to use the music of a prophet who is always pushing for the advancement of human rights issues, then I should be happy.
Which brings us back to the original story. Both sides of the issue make very compelling and worth while points. But what do we do about it?
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this.
1 comment:
Sellout...sellout...sellout. Bottom line. Not even open for discussion. Comiskey Park, Joe Louis Arena, Yankee Stadium, Lambeau Field hell, even Husky Park sounds better than Bank One Ballpark, U.S. Cellular Field, T.D. Waterhouse Arena and whatever other corporate bile is out there.
Do you want your students to be well-educated mindless little corporate consumers or would you rather they learn why the baseball field is named after an important teacher or leader in the community. Say no to corporate money, even if it means not having a computer in your classroom in which to contemplate your Fantasy Football league.
The Saul Williams Nike commercial made my fucking skin crawl. I buy his reasoning, and i respect his decision and his right to get paid, but a sellout is a sellout is a sellout.
Post a Comment