To the Daily:
The United States flag flying on Central Campus is tattered beyond the point of normal wear and tear. This does not speak well of the University's respect for the Colours, unless of course they mean it to be a living memorial to the Battle of Fort Sumter (in which case, I believe that Fort Sumter is doing a more than adequate job). If money is the issue, then I cannot believe that money is the issue.
Sande Schlesinger
LSA junior
To the Daily:
When I first heard about the disastrous effects of El Niño, I dismissed it as pure coincidence. But when I read John Gekas's startling revelation on "(Daily Sports Writer Josh) Kleinbaum's personal ignorance regarding the oldest sport in intercollegiate athletics" (rowing), everything fell into place in a flash of lucidity ("Daily does not cover all club sports," 4/10/98)! The apocalypse is at hand! How dare a Daily writer not write about the rowing team as if the entire University were familiar with them. After all, the team is in the midst of its second year as a varsity sport. Kleinbaum had some nerve mocking the rowers as if not everyone knows they have a team! Shame on you, Kleinbaum! Shame!
Furthermore, I am aghast at the thought that the Daily does not devote the same level of coverage to rowing as the younger sports like football and basketball. After all, rowing is the "oldest sport in intercollegiate athletics!" I can't emphasize that enough!
Gekas hit the nail on the head when he dismissed Kleinbaum's article as a "personal attack or merely the product of the highest form of intellectual incompetence." I happen to think he was right on both accounts. I'm sure that Kleinbaum does nothing but conspire to ruin the lives of the rowers by patronizing them with any chance he gets. He probably hates rowers.
Thank you John, for bringing this to everyone's attention. Thank you for lambasting a "paper clearly unable to perceive neither a sense of responsibility nor of competence regarding the craft it employs."
Kleinbaum is a disgrace. I'm going to hide in my bomb shelter now. The apocalypse is near!
Chris Walton
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
I'm writing to tell the story of recent events in the the State of Texas. Texas state Rep. Jim Pitts. a Republican, announced a legislative plan to expand the death penalty to include children. Until now, 16 years of age was the youngest age that one could get the death penalty. Already, Texas executes more people than any non-American nation in the western world and commits a full half of the executions in the United States.
Now, Pitts proposes that 11-year-olds be condemned to death. This is the youngest age to which the death penalty has ever been proposed to apply. Given the slothfulness and neglect of the juvenile court system, it's conceivable that a juvenile offender who commits a crime at age 5 or 6 could be sentenced to death for the same offense years later.
The recent emphasis on "fiscal responsibility" has pared the juvenile justice system down to a few overworked lawyers and judges who are consistently without the resources they need. In such a system, is it possible for a kid who commits a crime to get a fair shake? I think not. (Oh, incidentally, when it comes to "fiscal responsibility," the U.S. Congress just appropriated $650 billion to the military - a full $10 billion more than the Pentagon requested. I know I'm really stretching the reasoning, but oh well ...)
Is this the way America and the rest of the world is heading? The majority of death penalty recipients are people who live beneath the poverty line, even without the aid of Pitts. Are American children to become fodder for the juggernaut of globalization, like some Nike factory worker?
This is the way it works in the mind of our government: If you're poor, you don't mean shit. So the "War on the Poor" goes on ... welfare cuts move forward, real wages decline (for 85 percent of the American workforce), and the rich get richer. The new American ethic: Ignore what horror poverty brings to people. Cut the safety net and blame the poor for poverty - call it reform. Begin mass executions and call it justice.
Now, thanks to Pitts, we've got the opening we need to really get the ball rolling. Let the slaughter begin.
Or stop it.
Chad Bailey
School of Public Health
To the Daily:
As the term ends, let me again thank the Daily for its supportive coverage of lesbian/gay/bisexual concerns in its news articles and editorials.
Since we founded Gay Liberation here in 1970 and what is now the Office of LGBT Affairs in 1971, the Daily has consistently spoken out for our human and civil liberties.
I ask the Daily to continue this support. On May 5, we are faced with a possible defeat of the Ypsilanti nondiscrimination ordinance. A majority of the Michigan legislature opposes civil liberties for members of our constituency. The Daily's voice on our behalf must continue to be heard - and that voice must also speak out on behalf of transgendered people, whose needs are often confused in the public mind with sexual-orientation issues and minimized accordingly.
My appreciation and admiration to all of you at the Daily. Continue your good work.
Jim Toy
Co-Founder and former Co-Coordinator, LGBPO
To the Daily:
I can appreciate Kenneth Jones' concerns on the issue of not having formal support or communication with certain student groups. However, I think it is ludicrous and hollow spouting to say, "(Brian) Reich failed at securing an inclusive dialogue that would truly encompass the entire University campus" ("Town hall lacked 'U' minority input," 4/13/98). I attended the town hall meeting. It was an open event in which anyone in the audience had the opportunity to be included in the dialogue. Thus, it was an inclusive dialogue. I think the walk out was a strong statement. But, those that walked out have no ground to claim they were not included in the discussion. The truth is that the dialogue was inclusive of anyone interested in attending. The process of organizing the event was inclusive, I do not know. We should however be accurate in what our gripes are.
Carlos Hernandez Ford
Medical School
To the Daily:
As I write this, we are in the middle of Tri Delt and Chi Psi's 15th-annual teeter-totter-a-thon. All of the money we raise goes to Mott's Childrens Hospital. I am not here to be all gung-ho greek system, because I believe "to each his own." I just wanted to relay a message to the guy who walked by me Wednesday morning at 9 a.m. and said (in a rude tone of voice) "Why don't you cancel a formal and donate all the money?" Your statement was really mean. I like going to formals, but I also enjoy raising money for Tri-Delt's national philanthropy, Children's Cancer Charities. I stood in the cold for an hour today, not to rub in your face how I feel about my sorority, but rather, to raise money for sick kids. It's fine if you don't want to donate, but I think you should brush up on the golden rule: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Emma Jones
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
I'm disappointed in the statement of Michigan Student Assembly Rep. Brian Reich, if the Daily quoted him correctly ("Dialogue addresses race," 4/8/98). But it probably did, since it seems to parrot the basic excuse of President Clinton's initiative itself. It shows Reich's limited grasp of the issue. The Daily quotes Reich as saying, "You cannot represent every single group on this campus - in this nation - in one panel."
True enough, but Reich and the White House seem to have overlooked, or ignored, the fact that there are only four groups identified in federal law as minorities in this country. One of those, of course, is Native Americans.
One would expect the president, the top federal officer in the nation, to include in his "initiative on race" representatives from each of those four federally designated groups, if no others. To not do so lends very strong impetus to Natives American's understanding of their own non-status in the U.S. government's view.
Jim Beck
University staff
To the Daily:
Thank you for your coverage of the celebrations of the Easter and Passover holidays. I would like to point out that there are two significant links between the two holidays: The first is historical, the second symbolic.
Historically, Passion week (the week leading up to Easter) has its roots in the Passover celebration. Remember that Jesus was Jewish, and the Last Supper, which was the first institution of the Eucharist (holy communion), was a Passover celebration (Matthew 26). The entire story of Jesus' death and resurrection took place against the backdrop of the Passover.
Secondly, Passover is a celebration and a medium of redemption and freedom, and sanctification is its result. As the story goes in Exodus 12 and 13, God severely judges ancient Egypt for its persecution of His people by killing the firstborn children in the land. He passed over those houses whose door was marked by the blood of an unadulterated lamb. The families were to eat of that lamb, and their sons were unharmed. For Christians, Jesus represents that lamb without blemish, because through His blood we are passed over from suffering in the next world; Easter is our celebration of this. Through Him, we receive our freedom and redemption, and by Him, we are sanctified (made holy).
I encourage any feedback on my stance here.
Feel free to e-mail me at morrowlj@umich.edu.
Joby Morrow
LSA senior
To the Daily:
There I was, walking out of Dennison, and something made me grab a copy of The Michigan Daily. As usual, another headline proclaiming somebody else was trying to destroy affirmative action screamed at me from the front page. Is this really news? There have been people and organizations trying to stop affirmative action since before it became a policy. To all those that read the Daily, or any newspaper, you must understand that there are equally valid reasons to support or oppose the affirmative action policies of both the University and the state of Michigan.
Affirmative action policies were born with the purpose of ending segregation and diluting ethnic prejudices among the citizens of the United States. Some people will say that it has fulfilled its purpose and that it is becoming an obnoxious plot to give preferences to minorities. Any person who believes that ethnic prejudices have been eliminated in this country is kidding themselves, and they are the fools for believing in their own biases. Each one of us is different and because of this, we will create personal prejudices. Nothing can tell anyone how to think, which is why affirmative action is simply a way to dilute these prejudices and see each other as unique instead of a lesser human being. We have affirmative action policies as a tool to encourage people to see and amend their own prejudices by throwing us all together in our own little piece of this world. After all, nobody wants to be a party to discrimination.
Others will argue that affirmative action has done so much good for our society. Make a list and I'll believe it. In reality, what incredible good has it done if we're all still arguing about it? The policies, as they are written, obviously don't conform to the needs of our society. These policies need to be rewritten, not revoked. Not to get picky, but it seems as though the members of BAMN want to defend affirmative action as though it is a religious or moral belief. It's not. It is a policy that encourages the acceptance of others, which is a moral value that each and every one of us should already practice. From the standpoint of admissions to the University, affirmative action is unnecessary. The sole purpose of the admissions process, as it was explained to me, is to accept those students that the admissions board believes can survive and excel in a college environment. If the admissions board did their job, they would be doing just that and the ethnicity of a person would not even become an issue.
To those readers that believe who I am not taking a stand by refuting my own argument, you have not been paying attention. The debate should not be whether or not affirmative action is appropriate or unjust at the University. Rather, it has become blatantly obvious that everyone has their own feelings on the issue and that both sides have equally valid arguments. This only supports the fact that the affirmative action policies here do not work to the satisfaction of the people and, should therefore, be revised.
Michael Rugnetta
Engineering sophomore
To the Daily:
The Daily's editorial on the Abbott v. Bragdon case ("Discriminatory Practice," 4/3/98) was a pathetic example of a total lack of research in editorial journalism. Dentist Randon Bragdon did not refuse to treat the HIV infected Sidney Abbott, as the editorial claims; Bragdon was willing to fill Abbott's cavity, but wished to do it in a hospital instead of his office, with extra cost to the patient. With this central point cleared up, the arguments in the rest of the editorial are rendered moot, as the Daily is essentially discussing a case that does not exist. I am appalled that one would be as irresponsible as to write an opinionated editorial without, apparently, reading a single coherent article on the issue at hand. Perhaps if the Daily spent more time researching the case instead of coming up with irrelevant references to Magic Johnson, it would have be able to produce a more worthwhile article.
Even more disturbing is the line above the editorial section of the Daily, "Unless otherwise noted, unsigned articles reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board." Since this editorial was unsigned, this means that either the majority of the Daily's editorial board is as ignorant of the facts in this case as the person who wrote the article, and yet still feel themselves capable of developing a stance on it, or the majority of the Daily's editorial staff didn't actually read the editorial, but blindly allowed this blanket statement to lend the editorial their endorsement. Either way, The fact that this editorial was able to make it to print without someone catching the misinformation central to the issue is a prime example of why the Daily does not have the credibility to go along with its "one hundred seven years of editorial freedom."
Elisabeth Marie
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
I have long had problems with the building we all know and love as the Central Campus Recreation Building. Call it the CCRB, the Crib, whatever ... it's terrible. First of all, as an avid basketball enthusiast, there are not even close to enough courts there. Most of the time, you wind up waiting for two or three games just to play. This takes anywhere from half an hour to an hour or more. If you lose the first game you play, the whole excursion was a waste because you don't want to wait another hour to play again. At a school of this size and esteem, don't you think that we should have a building a little bit more modern than the 1970s-esque CCRB? I have seen facilities at other schools comparable to the University, and they almost always are 10 times better. Indiana and Emory recently made new, state-of-the-art facilities for their students. I feel like the University could definitely spare the cash. Maybe they could use the money that you have to pay to get a new M-Card.
Which brings me to my second problem with the CCRB. I just returned from the Student Activities building after paying $15 for my fourth M-Card. Why? My wallet was stolen at the CCRB. I was playing basketball (only had to wait 15 minutes!), and I put my wallet in the inside, zippered pocket of my jacket. I folded my jacket up and placed it under one of the benches on the edge of the court, as I have done every time I go to the CCRB. Three games later, when I went to go get my jacket, it was unfolded, with the inside pocket's zipper open. One of my fellow Wolverines had taken my wallet. Well, to whoever you are, I hope you enjoy the $9 that was in there.
Soon after realizing my wallet was gone, I filled out a report with the CCRB. I must say the staff was helpful and event told the Department of Public Safety to come out. When the officers arrived, they basically told me what happened, since they had seen this type of thing so many times before. I was surprised to find out that the CCRB has the highest amount of larceny of any building on campus. In their infinite wisdom, the officers told me to bring a quarter for a locker next time.
It seems to me that if this type of thing happens so often, then the CCRB is not dealing with a problem of huge proportions. This facility is showing negligence. It obviously knows there is a problem with theft and is choosing to not deal with it at all. Sure, they do put a "gym monitor" in there at some hours, but what are they going to do, ask me for my hall pass? All I have seen them do is stare off into space and obviously not help when my wallet was being stolen.
I believe that the CCRB owes the students of this University the safety that they deserve when playing basketball, running on the track or just waiting an hour to play a game. Furthermore, I think this school can do a lot better than the CCRB as an "athletic facility." My tuition has already paid for a first-rate football team, why not use it for something directly for the students?
So I sit here now, with my new $15 M-Card as my only piece of picture I.D. and a larger cynicism for the world, wondering, why I even went to the CCRB in the first place.
Jay Kuperstein
Kinesiology junior
04-21-98
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |