As a first-year student who was previously very involved with my high school paper, I'd like to commend you on your very professional and thorough publication.
However, I have a bit of a bone to pick with you about your coverage of the Emmys. On the front page of Monday's paper you have a preview box, denoting expanded Emmy coverage on page 8A. But the article accompanying the picture of Dennis Miller ("'ER' docs leave 'NYPD' blue at 50th Emmys," 9/9/96) is void of one of the basic news writing laws, objectivity. Why is the article so opinionated? What authority does (Joshua) Rich have to deem certain shows inferior? If this piece was supposed to be heavily opinionated, why was his e-mail address not left at the end, in the same fashion as (Adrienne) Janney's piece on Page 4A ("Student housing theory 101," 9/9/96). If this article was a review, like two of the others on Page 8A, where is the review logo?
Perhaps a factual recap of the event coupled with Rich's opinion piece would have worked better. Or at least an article with some objective recap of the event.
Steve Horwitz
LSA first-year student
In his column last Friday, Zack Raimi makes a number of charges against the next president of the United States, Bob Dole ("Bob Dole's taxing tale," 9/6/96). While I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer all the charges, I feel compelled to answer two of the charges.
First, Raimi draws a connection between Dole's recent conversion to supply-side economics and the lies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. I could write pages to refute this, but I will simply say that, if such a connection can be drawn, it pales in comparison to President Bill Clinton who must ask his advisers each morning what he believes today.
Finally, he calls supply-side economics "failed policies of the past."
Perhaps Raimi needs to brush up on his history. Reaganomics created the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history. As for the deficit, Reagan fought for a balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto. (It took a Republican congress to pass the line-item veto and to at least bring the balanced budget amendment to a vote.)
As Reagan himself said, "I used to say to some of the Democrats: 'You need to balance the government's checkbook the same way you balance your own.'
"Then I learned how they ran the House bank, and I realized that was exactly what they had been doing."
Jim Riske
Engineering sophomore
In response to the Daily's editorial titled, "What's the rush?" (9/10/96): I would like to offer a view from the other side. First, the whole theme that rush and the Greeks prevent the fulfillment of other outside interests is completely false.
In fact, the Greek system strongly encourages campus involvement. In my experience, I doubt that I would have had the guts to run for a student government position in my first year if I hadn't had the encouragement and unfailing support of my sorority.
I can't tell you how much it meant to me knowing that more than 100 women were out on campus rooting for me. I wouldn't have won without the support and confidence that they gave me.
I also would strongly disagree that rush wastes too much valuable time. First of all, people that have gone through rush, whether or not they pledge a house, will have met so many new people, that this "great big campus" won't seem so scary after they start recognizing familiar faces all over the place after rush.
Second, if formal rush seems too intimidating, there is always informal rush. Many people, including myself, who were terrified at the thought of going through the formal rush process, but still wanted to be a part of a strong sisterhood can find what they're looking for in informal rush.
You charge that the pledge term gobbles up the study time of that all-important first semester. That's what I thought too, but I have found that the Greeks and my sorority fully realize that we are here for an education and encourage academic excellence.
I can see that every time I go to the library with my sisters and we see clusters of other Greeks studying together. A huge bonus is the ability to tap into the wealth of knowledge about concentrations, classes, instructors and various other tidbits about school with which the older members of the house are more than happy to share.
I want to thank my sorority for helping me learn about my potential and giving me endless opportunities for learning, leadership, friendship and helping me grow into the kind of person that can take on the world. I hope that every student looking for a place where they can do the same listens to their heart and finds it.
Kelly Kloustin
LSA junior; member, Alpha Xi Delta Sorority
While I am reasonably impressed by the Daily's coverage of the state party conventions this weekend, I must correct a few errors in (Anu) Reddy's report from Lansing ("Abortion divides GOP in Lansing," 9/9/96).
First, the contest between Judy Frey and Mike Bishop was hardly frantic, as reported in the first paragraph. While the contest was interesting, to say the least, neither candidate's forces would have been greatly put out by a loss. While abortion was a key factor in Frey's loss, it was not because she was "pro-choice." It was because she had been actively pro-abortion. Many of us consider abortion to be murder. For us, it was not a question of a tolerance under a "big tent," it was a question of trust regarding fundamental principles.
Reddy claims that Bishop's win was "not without last-minute arm-twisting among delegates." It should be noted that the folks twisting arms were on the Frey side. Pro-life arm-twisting consisted of two College Republicans holding up handwritten signs in support of Bishop. Abortion did not divide the convention. The Republican Party is decidedly pro-life and rightly so. The fight on Saturday morning was between those who did not trust Frey and those who felt that Gov. Engler's endorsement was the most important thing. I can defend Bishop's beliefs. I could not say the same about Frey.
Jim Riske
Engineering sophomore