I am writing in response to the article concerning the construction on the Diag ("Summer construction plagues 'U'," 7/9/97). Several people were quoted as saying that the work is a major hassle, which I have to agree with. I too would like to sit there after a tough day and soak up the University's atmosphere. The problem is, many of those same individuals feel that the work is unnecessary. How exactly did they come to that conclusion? Are they not here in February or March when the snow melts and the grass portions take on the appearance of a lake? One of my favorite pictures from the LSA admissions booklet is of a group of students walking through the Diag. Someone captured a touching moment of some class-bound students and their reflection in one of the massive pools that develop due to the Diag's compact soil and poor drainage. Once the repairs are finished, that problem will be dealt with.
Stationary water is not the only problem that the construction is going to fix, but student-made footpaths over the grass are going to be paved as well. It is sad that so many students were too lazy to walk across the sidewalk when coming to or from Angell Hall, but now that problem will be cleared up with little student effort.
People were probably too busy to notice that the sidewalks were in need of repair as well. Many sections, the north-west end in particular, were in pretty rough shape.
I think the Diag construction is a pain too. There have been major projects going on all four of my years here, and it would be nice to see a campus free of debris and noise. It is a pain, but in a few weeks we can all reap the benefits of this project. Look at the section by East Hall for a while; it was one of the worst sections of campus. Now it is one of my favorite spots to sit and take a break. Those improvements are similar to what we can look forward to once the the Diag construction is finished.
Christopher Witmer
LSA senior
As Liz Lucas noted in her 7/2/97 column, ("Roswell shows the public distrust of the government") the gullibility over the Roswell flying-saucer "incident" does indicate an appreciable degree of public distrust in our government. But it also indicates something far worse than that: A widespread decline in U.S. citizens' ability to think logically and critically.
What combination of confusion, despair, ignorance, malaise, insecurity and silliness has led to this condition, who can say? But this gullibility - this vulnerability to the lowest level of con artists and hucksters - is a far more serious problem for our society than is suspicion of government concealment and falsehood. It would be encouraging if one could dignify this hysterical and herd-like public attitude with the term skepticism. But skepticism is an outlook that must be earned through rational inquiry and deliberation. Even more alarming is the fact that the mass media have played a leading role in the Roswell con job, and in so doing, influential journalists have betrayed our profession's responsibility to the public. Good journalism innoculates the public against pseudoscientific hooey of all sorts.
University students should be encouraged to be truly skeptical rather than, as Lucas urged them in the conclusion of her column, to be lamely vulnerable to the notion that the crackpots might have been "on the right track all along." Our scientists landed a probe on Mars last week. I'm sure none of them believes that aliens landed at Roswell and just as sure that no Roswell "believer" or Roswell con-artist can send anything into outer space.
John Woodford
Executive Editor, Michigan Today
07-16-97
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |