Letters to the Editor

'One nation, under the Code ...'

To the Daily:

I would just like to say that I supprt state Rep. Alan Sanborn's (R-Washington Twp.) ideas for reducing the state budget. In the Dec. 10 article "Bill may lend support to Code," Sanborn said that passing a bill allowing institutions of higher education to require students to sign a responsibility contract "would put the full force of the Michigan Constitution behind codes of conduct currently in place." What Sanborn is saying is that there is no need for the state Supreme Court since any bill that the state Legislature passes must be constitutional. So millions of dollars per year could be saved by abolishing the Michigan Supreme Court. While he's at it, he could pass a bill allowing people to shoot anyone who looks suspicious. That way we could save millions more per year by not having a police force. And think of the relief on the legal system! How do you try a dead man? Just think if Sanborn made it to the White House. We could wipe out the U.S. Supreme Court. And why not pass a bill allowing Texans and Californians to shoot immigrants coming across the border, thereby reducing social expenditures in those states by millions more a year? And the education system could be improved because students shouldn't have to waste time taking civics in high school. I mean, that whole checks and balances thing can't be right, can it? I guess it's too bad for Sanborn that term limits can't be found unconstitutional.

One nation, under the Code, with closed hearings and dry campuses for all.

John Geis

Rackham

Lockyer is 'insensitive'

To the Daily:

When we opened Tuesday's issue and read Sarah Lockyer's article ("The 20-something guy is not all that bad, just ask Susan and Sarah"), we were horrified at the messages conveyed. Lockyer insists that the TV show "Sex and the City" is about feminism via female sexual assertion, but the rest of her article makes it clear that such assertion is in fact little more than destructive objectification of men.

As Lockyer states, the show's female protagonists "encourage us to simply take the 20-something guy for what he's worth - almost nothing, but just enough to give us what we need." If a male columnist had made this statement about the 20-something gal, SAPAC would be picketing the Daily in no time.

We would also like to say that our hearts go out to Lockyer, since she has apparently had lousy luck with men. She complains of how "our guys put us through the solitude of the morning after and the bore of the pre-game."

Excuse us, "our" guys? Not all 20-something men are insensitive pigs who abandon their sexual partners within hours, nor do all such men talk exclusively about sports. Many are perfectly decent, caring, affectionate human beings with cultured tastes to share.

In fact, by saying that the women in "Sex and the City" have the right idea when they use men strictly for sex, Lockyer is showing herself to be on the same insensitive level as the type of man she mocks.

Astrid Phillips

LSA senior David Pratt Engineering senior

Granger does not belong at the 'U'

To the Daily:

I was amazed at the opinion that was expressed in the editorial titled "Closed doors" in Tuesday's Daily that reflected "the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board." If this truly is the majority opinion, then I am beginning to see how the idea of "accountability for one's own action" is failing in today's society.

The argument in the article went something like this: Daniel Granger did a bad thing by committing statutory rape, he was punished by the courts and is serving his sentence, and when done, he should be able to go on with his life as if nothing had happened. The Daily then declares that his rights were being stepped on and that the University is making a judgement on the justice system by revoking his admissions.

So, using the same logic: Should the police officers who beat Rodney King be allowed to come back to the job after having finished their prison terms? I mean, they are rehabilitated right? And it would be stepping on their rights and interfering with their rehabilitation if they were not allowed back on the job, right? Wrong. The action that those officers took will stay with them for the rest of their lives or until they convince the community otherwise.

"Rehabilitation" does not equal "clean slate." Serving a prison sentence does nothing for the trust that must be build back up between Granger and the community. The campus community will accept Granger if he shows that he has changed his ways by successfully completing a year at another educational institution (I'm sure that Washtenaw Community College would accept him). And with the community support, I am sure that the U of M would consider his application once again.

I have always hoped that when being admitted to schools, it is more than just my grades that have impressed. I have hoped that my social record and my ability to consistently be a contributing member of society have played roles in my admittance. When the University makes such a move as in Granger's case, I am comforted that such factors are in fact being considered.

If the University allows other students who have commit similar offenses to continue their schooling here, then that is a separate issue that does need to be dealt with. Those individuals should also be encouraged to continue elsewhere until they have proven their worth. It should not, however, be used as an excuse for Granger to stay.

Scott Crawford

Rackham

Beethoven never wrote a Requiem

To the Daily:

Yet again, I find myself writing to the Daily as a result of faulty journalism. This time, however, I am responding to an article that covers my actual area of expertise: music. I am referring to the preview of Wednesay night's concert at Hill Auditorium ("Great work returns to campus," 12/9/98). I was glad to see a concert by the philharmonia and the chamber choir covered in the Daily. Heaven knows the classical music coverage is slim due in no small part, I am sure, to the decreased interest in this art form in the general population. Two small items in your article, however, are in need of correction.

First, in your discussion with Prof. Morrison on the sporadic performances Beethoven's "C major Mass" receives you printed that "he speculated that the more widely known Beethoven's late 'Requiem' may be partially responsible for overshadowing this work..." I found it interesting that a work that does not exist should overshadow the "C major Mass." It might behoove you to learn that Beethoven never wrote a Requiem. The piece Morrison was most likely referring to, as his half-humorous comment that "no one can sing it or play it" leads me to believe, is the "Missa Solemnis in D major." This is indeed a work of intense difficulty from Beethoven's late creative period and is probably the work Morrison was referring to.

The next item is simply semantical. In mentioning the second half of the program the article talked about "Metamorphose and Till Eulenspiegel, two compositions for strings by German composer Richard Strauss." The only problem with this statement is that only Metamorphosen is scored for strings. Till Eulenspiegel is scored for full orchestra.

I am aware that perhaps I am being far too picky but errors such as these not only make the Daily's staff, as journalists, look bad by making you seem like you have not done your research, it makes one of our distiguished music faculty members look bad.

Armando Bayolo

Rackham

12-11-98