Letters to the Editor

Natatorium renovation wastes 'U' money

As a recent graduate who will soon have to start the long process of paying back the $12,000-plus in student loans that I had to take out to attend this school, it bothers me tremendously to see the University allocate $7 million to renovate the natatorium.

I guess what I don't understand is why a public university such as ours will take $7 million of their budget to fix an already perfectly good swimming pool, one which is already considered "among the finest college-owned swimming and diving buildings in the nation by students and athletes," while many of its students are struggling to pay their tuition bills and their rent. Are athletics considered more important than education from a budgeting standpoint? From the looks of it, you might think so.

As quoted by the Daily, student Randall Johnson said students "... know that the natatorium exists, but I am not sure they visit it." This might be because a good portion of us spend our free time working full- or part-time jobs to pay for our tuition, the same tuition that contributes to the funds allocated to renovate the natatorium, which we never have time to visit because we are working.

In addition, not only are the students quite often not getting the money they need, but other programs are suffering as well. There were several activities that I was involved in as an undergraduate that had trouble obtaining necessary or adequate funding. Many of the smaller, non-athletic organizations on campus run on tight, restrictive budgets that keep them from being optimally productive and also keep them from growing and expanding while the athletic teams get all of the funding that they need and then some.

And this is not to mention how incredibly selfish it is to spend $7 million on a swimming pool. It's a good thing there are no longer any needy or starving children in the world.

I do believe that extra-curricular activities are important. I think that athletics build both strong characters and bodies. It's essential to have facilities to use for such purposes, and I understand that these facilities and programs cost money. I am proud of our champion teams, and support them fully. But I find it very disheartening when it appears that the athletic programs and their commercial value get top-priority over educational and scholarship programs. This is a university, not a sports camp.

Amy LeBlanc
University alumna

Clinton betrayed other Democrats

To the Daily:
So he did it. The question haunting America since we first heard about tapes and interns and special investigators has been answered. In front of a grand jury, delivering his testimony from his own living room, President Bill Clinton admitted he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. He admits it and he knows it's wrong; end of story - or is it? He forgot about us, his supportive, liberal party.

That's right, the Democrats have been left in the dust. When the news first came out, Clinton called on us for support. He told us nothing ever happened and he needed our help getting him out of trouble. And we did. Democratic politicians went before their contingencies only months before an election to quell rumors of a carousing president. Writers put their credibility on the line and stated flatly, "he says he didn't do it, she says they didn't do it, he didn't do it."

And then, one day, "Oops. Y' know, I forgot, I did have an extramarital affair after all." Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

The question is, what to do now. As a president, Clinton's done his job better than anyone since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The country is in good shape, the budget is balanced, and the future is looking bright. We'd like nothing more than to continue our support of President Clinton and what he's doing for our country. But next time he gets in trouble, don't be surprised if there's an awful shortage of those willing to speak out in his favor again.

Seth Fisher
LSA first-year student

'U' should accommodate recent grads

To the Daily:
I am a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, with a B.S. in engineering. I am currently living in Los Angeles, but I purchased airline tickets to return to Ann Arbor for all of the Michigan home games with the understanding that I, as a recent graduate, would receive high priority for football tickets.

In regards to the recent 1999 football ticket distribution, I feel that my opinion needs to be heard. It is a travesty to the University's recent graduates, and avid Michigan football fans, that Michigan Stadium is now larger than ever and a large number of recent graduates still did not receive tickets. I fully understand that the ticket department wanted to avoid the same situation as last year, when many first-year students were allotted split-season tickets, and I fully support this. The students should always receive top priority whenever it comes to athletic ticketing. But with the stadium renovations and the extra seating capacity, I am compelled to inquire as to who all of these seats are being allotted to since the recent graduates are being hung out to dry.

I have been a ticket holder for five years now, and I think I speak for many Michigan football fans when I say that I am very disappointed with the assignment of football tickets this year. I have been a fan through the hardships and the exaltation associated with the last five or six seasons, and I will continue to be a Michigan fan regardless of whatever may happen. But the current unjustifiable ticket situation is truly a test of my faith, and I am only left with the feeling of being screwed. I have travelled with the team, have gone to the bowl games and loved every minute of it. How can the new Big House not find room for last year's occupants?

Jason Clevenger
University alumnus

Article lacked journalistic skepticism

To the Daily:
I just finished reading Rachel Groman's story in the Aug. 10 issue ("Nuclear reactor closed for 3 weeks").

It sounded like a press release from the University. Did Groman really take the techno-veep's word that the violations were "just technicalities," whatever that means? And how about this three-week shutdown? Is it truly voluntary? How do similar facilities at other schools compare?

Would this be a big deal for them, or the business-as-usual that Vice President for Research Frederick Neidhardt claims it is?

Those are the opening questions I would ask before even slotting the story for possible publication. I'm not suggesting that anyone become hostile or combative (except, perhaps, at the invitation of a reluctant news source). But when I finished the story, I sure didn't know what to make of it. If everything is, in fact, OK, then you gotta ask the killer question: Is this news?

Well, is it?

Rob Bier
University alumnus

09-10-98