Letters to the Editor

Bollinger's move is 'at the expense of students'

To the Daily:

After reading the article "Plan set for move from Fleming" (10/28/98), I was overtaken by confusion. Bollinger explains that the reason for the move is to make the president "more centrally located." Is Angell Hall really closer to the students than a building next to the Union?

From what I understand, the plans for the new, student-friendlier administration offices will displace the LSA Academic Advising Center, the Honors Office and part of the Registrar's Office. Instead of having a quality service close to undergraduate students, we will have rows of administration offices.

The president and the regents are moving to Angell Hall at the expense of the students. A student-friendlier administration would at least make provisions to move Academic Advising first so that LSA students don't have to be advised in converted classrooms with cardboard cubicles for four years.

Gregg Lanier

LSA senior

Societies do not deserve relationship with the 'U'

To the Daily:

The University ought to discontinue its allocation of space in the Union to the Michiguama and Adara secret societies. The space ought to be given to groups of students who are willing to include all members of the University population in their ranks. The existence of such organizations undermines the spirit of fairness and accessibility that should exist here at one of the great public universities.

If indeed the objectives, activities and social networks embraced by the secret societies do benefit the general population of University students, then membership ought to be open to all who aspire to join. The societies seem to me to be little more than clubs of self-important people who became members of the societies through the very social networks and friendships that the societies supposedly exist to further. Thus, it seems like the societies exist mainly to perpetuate their own existence! This hardly seems like something that benefits the University population as a whole.

It is interesting to me that the kind of elitism that propels secret societies is being criticized on the basis of a technicality that really doesn't seem to have much impact on who gets invited to join since one organization exists for men and another for women. Nobody complains about the separateness of women's and men's restrooms. But if a luxurious, first-class restroom existed such that individuals had to be hand-picked to be able to use it, nobody would draw any conclusion other than elitism.

The burden of proof ought to be placed on the secret societies to show that they are indeed worthy of association with the University. If the societies want to continue to exist as separate entities for men and women, why don't they start calling themselves fraternities and sororities?

Matthew Murphy

LSA senior

Many different ethnic groups 'rule the world'

To the Daily:

In regard to Jeff Berman's letter ("Misleading racism is still prevalent," 10/28/98), I agree that the misguided person who said that "Jews rule the world and the country" was severely mistaken and ignorant about how the world works. No single ethnic or religious group runs the world. This type of thinking is very similar to those who in 1960 thought a vote for Kennedy was a vote for the Pope and the Catholic Church to take over the United States.

However, Berman is equally ignorant if he feels Jews are not represented in influential and powerful sectors of society. As for CEOs of major corporations, how about Michael Eisner of Disney? Companies don't get much larger than that. In Hollywood, Goldwyn and Mayer founded MGM and Spielberg and Katzenburg founded Dreamworks SKG. In Finance, there is Goldman Sachs, S. G. Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Baron de Rothscild and numerous others.

My point is Jews are influential, but so are many other ethnic groups. Those who "rule the world" are not concerned with petty arguments about race and ethnicity, they are too busy running things while we are distracted.

Mark Adams

Engineering senior

The Daily should 'boot' Lockyer

To the Daily:

After reading the Oct. 27 column "Women really do have it all" by Sarah Lockyer, I realized that her insipid column about "Studio 654" was probably her academic opus. There is not a single female "engineering geek" who has claimed "womanly problems" or "teared up" in front of a professor that I have ever heard of. The best thing the Daily can do for women on campus is to boot the ultra-liberated Lockyer and run James Miller twice a week.

Atasi Bagchi

Engineering senior

Responsible drinking is part of life

To the Daily:

This letter is in response to the Daily article ("Drinking nailed after tragedies," 10/29/98). One of the more provocative messages brought forth by students interviewed in this article was that of Engineering student Nate Greenberg. Greenberg states that "students have to choose to limit their drinking" and that "people have to take responsibility for their actions." I find myself in agreement with Greenberg, but I disagree with him when he and other students say that blame is too heavily appropriated upon those who serve alcohol to underage students rather than the students themselves.

While the choice remains ultimately in the hands of the student, we must decide who is at fault when a student who should not have been able to drink does so in excess. I feel strongly that whomever decides to serve alcohol at a party should also expect to assume responsibility for what happens to an underage drinker in attendance. I know from experience that little if any care is ever taken to make sure that an underage student handles themselves respectably. In fact, we usually find that the opposite is true: A young student is initiated into "college life" with an encouraged push towards drunken impropriety for one very special night with special people.

Just as we punish the drug dealer far more than the user, we should also encourage servers of alcohol to take greater care of who drinks in their homes.

Several readers may frown at my choice for these unfortunate people who "choose" to drink when they are underage. I believe in the legal drinking age of 21 years because I don't feel confident that the majority of first-year students who drink at parties do so with any sound reasoning. Do they drink because they enjoy the taste? If everyone around you is having a good time, you want to be in on it too. Those young girls who accepted those shots are precisely the ones who are protected by the legal drinking age. We have to assume that when it comes to controlled substances, young, impressionable people will not always choose wisely.

The young people of this country have a fixation on alcohol and its abuse. When the people of our country celebrate their coming of age into adulthood, they often violently abuse a legal drug just because that is the night to do it. This depressing exhibition of a lack of experience and integrity is the impetus for this crackdown on alcohol that so many students are complaining about. In the end, people will always experiment with substance abuse.

But let us admit that we need to prevent tragedy by instilling a sense a responsibility and maturity in those who choose to serve. When people start dying, I would hesitate to blame them first.

Paul Bhasin

School of Music

11-04-98