To the Daily:
I am originally from Washington, D.C. I'm used to having flags lowered to half staff after the deaths of important people. On Wednesday, Sept. 24, the day after the hideous murder of Tamara Williams, I was surprised to see that no flags on Central Campus had been lowered.
Would it have been too much trouble for the University to lower one or two flags (perhaps on the Diag or the Union)? Or perhaps there were more pressing issues than the death of a University senior. My feeling is that there is no good excuse for forgetting such an important act of deference.
Lowering a flag to half staff is not only an act of respect. It is a gesture of mourning. It is also a strong symbolic gesture that makes anyone who looks at the flag reflect on the death and have a visual reminder of the loss and even the pain that pervades the campus.
I remember the flags at half staff after the Challenger exploded. I remember the flags at half staff after the death of Thurgood Marshall. I remember the flags at half staff after the death of Richard Nixon. I wish that the University could have made it possible for me to remember the flags after the death of Tamara Williams. Now I just remember the University's aloofness.
Aaron Rich
RC first-year student
To the Daily:
In Tish Lehman's letter, "Skateboards damage 'U' property" (9/25/97), she describes skateboarding damage to the Cube courtyard. Ann Arbor and University laws do not target the damage, they target the skateboards. No one is advocating vandalism of any sort! Most skaters would agree that "dangerous and destructive actions" such as public building target practice, breaking benches, or personal assault, should be illegal. However, there is no logical link between destroying University facilities and rolling down the street on soft, efficient polyurethane wheels. Why should skateboards be outlawed as opposed to any other mode of transportation? I protest the notion that destruction is inherent in skateboarding, that the mere possession of a piece of wood makes one an immediate threat to concrete and society.
No one will convince me that rollerblading does not have the destructive potential of skateboarding, and yet blades are legal, very popular and accepted. Bicycles? If I have to jump out of the way of one more oblivious biker careening through the Diag at peak pedestrian hours, I'm going to start pushing them over. If I'm on a bike, I ride in the street. If there's a crowd or little kids, I get off my board. Skaters are considerate. We don't want to run into you any more than you want to be damaged. The new organization of skaters (e-mail skaters@umich.edu) promotes both safe and legal skating.
I am strongly in favor of police and DPS officers giving out tickets for any destructive behavior, from skating into pedestrians to domestic violence to anti-semitic vandalism. But efficient modes of transportation, safe tricks and exercise should not be criminal offenses.
The cliche of evil skateboarders is outdated; a specific ban on skateboards is ridiculous; the laws should be changed.
Dave Ginsberg
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
In response to the recent death of a fellow student, I believe we need to provide domestic abuse services on North Campus. It is not always practical to go to Central Campus when you live on North Campus because you need to wait for the bus to take you there. In a domestic abuse situation, there is no time to wait for the bus.
There needs to be a place for victims of domestic abuse to go to in an emergency on North Campus. North Campus is also an appropriate place for domestic abuse services because that is where the family housing is. The families living in student housing generally have low income and high stress levels, which increase the risk of domestic abuse. The services provided need to address the problems of the families living on North Campus. These services might include job counseling to help the family to find employment, family counseling and a safe place to go in the event of abuse. These services need to be provided to prevent another senseless death.
Melissa Dreger
School of Social Work
To the Daily:
Michigan must go to the Rose Bowl on Jan. 1, 1998.
Why? I'm glad you asked.
Michigan did go to the Rose Bowl in 1948. My wife and I were University students at the time and had just been married (Dec. 20, 1947). We figured that going to the Rose Bowl would be a great honeymoon. And we could certainly get to Pasadena in time for the game. But we ran the risk of missing about a week of classes after the game, and in those days one just did not miss a week of classes.
Now, 50 years later, for our golden wedding anniversary, we are going to the Rose Bowl. And the Michigan football team damn well better be there too.
Perry Norton
Harriet Davis Norton
University alumni
To the Daily:
Recently, there has been a heated debate over the National Endowment for the Arts and its relevance to the overall budget scheme for this country. And while there is a significant debate over its necessity and its effectiveness, there are a few points which have oft been overlooked.
First of all, the NEA receives a budget of almost $100 million annually. In the entire national budget, this amount figures in as less than one-tenth of one percent. As a developed nation, we spend far less than any other on the arts.
Second, the NEA's grants, which are several thousand each year, are never enough to cover full cost of a given project. The small amounts of money that the NEA is able to grant are actually a foundation upon which most projects can then assert their validity and receive funding from the private sector. Private funding typically accounts for at least 80 percent of a project to which the NEA has given money. This goes to show that the NEA is actually one of the government's best examples of the public and private sectors working together.
Third, relying on private companies for funding would bring the arts programs in this country to their knees. Right now, RJ Reynolds, one of the most notorious big tobacco companies (and a huge arts funder), is asking people to whom it has donated money to speak on its behalf at tobacco trials and in front of grand juries. The threat that RJR is using is that it will pull funding a specific project unless that beneficiary speaks on their behalf and sings the praises of smoking. Humiliating? Yes. And the NEA is perhaps the last program that can help put a stop to big corporations controlling arts programs.
Finally, while there have been some controversial projects funded by the NEA, considering the broader picture is better than focusing on a point here or there. The fact is that the NEA funds thousands of arts events every year, and one among those thousands is not reason enough to pull the plug on this program.
As an arts student myself, I know that I present a view that could be seen as biased, but this is something which is a very important issue in this country. The arts are not something which necessarily have a tangible effect, but their presence can be felt.
Our focus should be about providing the best drama, music, art, dance and other arts-related areas to each and every individual. We have that ability. Now is the time not to stall the arts but to ensure that they continue on for generations to come.
Luke Klipp
School of Music sophomore
09-30-97
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |