The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/01/12/oprah_school_criticism

January 12, 2007 > Opinion > Criticism of Oprah’s school unwarranted

Criticism of Oprah’s school unwarranted

By Schuyler Woods | Thresher Editorial Staff

Recently, media mogul Oprah Winfrey announced the opening of a school in South Africa for underprivileged girls. Critics lambasted Winfrey for forgetting about American children’s education and donating her money to a foreign nation. Initially, I could not help but agree.

I was at first frustrated with Winfrey’s decision to build a school that was not in the United States. There remains much work to be done in our urban areas. To say that our help was needed more elsewhere drove me to a level of disdain that reminded me of my sentiments about the Iraq war — why help other nations capture freedom when many groups are still fighting for it domestically?

However, when I looked at Winfrey’s responses to her critics and debated with friends about the idea of seeding money into a school that was not homegrown, I began to understand Winfrey’s stance. And even agreed with the talk show host’s latest project.

There are several reasons why Winfrey’s actions should not be criticized. First, it is her money, and she may spend it as she pleases given that she has broken no laws. It is bold to suggest that observers of the Oprah phenomenon have the right to tell her what to do.

Secondly, if one were to make a xenophobic argument, then a simple comparison of the average American student to the students in Winfrey’s school demonstrates why she opted to invest in them rather than us. The primary difference is desire. After an extensive, two-year long interview process, Winfrey handpicked only the most driven young girls to be enrolled in her school. The girls were selected for their assiduousness, vision, aspirations and, most of all, their desire to improve their society. Winfrey argues that these characteristics are somewhat deficient in our society. Although we Americans have the the best educational resouces in the world at our disposal, we do not always take advantage of them.

Conversely, the South African girls, who did not have the compulsory education we take for granted, greatly appreciate the opportunity to step inside of a school, which Winfrey is benevolently offering. However, this is not to say that the American system of education is not flawed — it is. But some education, no matter how imperfect, is better than no education at all, which the South African children had to face..

Even when I look at such a prestigious university as Rice, I can see why Winfrey would choose to send her money abroad. The sheer political apathy that overwhelms the majority of our campus is dismaying. We take our basic rights to vote, to petition, to even speak, as well as our overall ability to affect change in society, for granted. Who are we to criticize Winfrey for helping others — who want to do better but do not have the means — when we do not even help ourselves?

I am not suggesting a wildly radical revolution on the national scale or even on the small scale of Rice University. Rather, I suggest Winfrey’s critics keep their mouths shut unless they plan on moving our feet about America’s own domestic education issues.

Schuyler Woods is Lovett College sophomore and assistant opinion editor.

End of article

Back to top