Letters to the Editor

Enforcing drinking laws will prevent crimes at the 'U'

To the Daily:

What's a university to do when members of some of its most prominent student organizations are stripping each other down to their underwear as part of a bizarre initiation ritual? Nothing, really. A student should be allowed to parade around in front of whoever he wants to, and in whatever kind of weather.

The real question is, what's the University Department of Public Safety to do when somebody gets shot at point blank range in the genitalia, or when someone gets alcohol poisoning because of a criminal initiation activity conducted by a prominent student organization? Clearly, DPS must investigate the events and enforce all applicable laws. Such laws exist to punish those who commit crimes, and to deter others from committing the same crimes again, even if the crime happens to be part of a tradition of "community service and brotherhood" or other such mumbo-jumbo.

Whenever somebody gets alcohol poisoning, whenever someone gets hurt during a hazing activity and whenever someone is involved in a sex crime involving underage drinking, the University ought to be held strongly accountable due to its flagrant underenforcement of underage drinking laws. These kinds of events would not occur so frequently if the University was less passive in its stance on underage alcohol abuse.

The Greek system is appropriately considered by the University to be a kind of student organization. The problem is that most students assume that student organizations are going to be relatively safe and that participation won't involve excessive health risks or criminal behavior. By neglecting to have DPS officers enforce underage drinking laws, the University makes itself an accomplice and should be held accountable by the University community.

Matthew Murphy

LSA senior

Hazing victims get what they deserve

To the Daily:

I am of the opinion that any of those fellows that want to hang out in their drawls, waiting to get shot in the penis, should be promptly shot in the penis. As many times as they wish. The same is true of anyone who wants darts thrown at their crotch or who would freely have their testicles detonated.

Further, anyone who has a hankering to shoot people in the penis (or throw the darts, or detonate the testicles) should do so at the sight of the first willing victim.

You see, no one who is into having their penis fired upon should be granted the privilege of carrying around fully-operational genitals. The threat of them passing on their defective genetic information is unfair to the rest of us. So I say, "Shoot away, frat-brothers!" May your aim be ever true! You are the proud defenders of our precious gene pool!

Ross Hunefeld

Engineering senior

Letter writers should lighten up

To the Daily:

I will be leaving Ann Arbor in a few weeks after spending the past four years here, and there are just a few things I want to get off my chest. There have been a few amazingly intolerant articles and letters printed in the Daily recently. In the issue from Dec. 7, Jesse Herzog wrote in complaining that the Bell Tower was (gasp) playing music! ("Bell tower music distracts and annoys") It's a Bell Tower, that's what it's for - you have four more years here, so get used to it. In the same issue, Maury Bricks was complaining about the poor language skills of people working in fast food restaurants ("Store clerks should improve their grammar"). These people aren't running for public office, okay? It's fast food - lighten up. Also, several weeks ago a staff member whose name slips my mind wrote an entire article complaining about people who complain too much. Anyone else see the irony here? And one last thing - I've read over the raging affirmative action debate in the letters section for over four years now. Here's a piece of advice: Drop it. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, so just agree to disagree.

Jeff Tyre

University alumnus

Chlorine-free paper is a worthy cause

To the Daily:

I was pleased to see that MSA has added their support to EnAct's efforts encouraging ITD's switch to non-chlorine bleached papers ("MSA to eliminate paper polling sites," 12/1/99).

The use of chlorinated chemicals in paper bleaching produces dioxin, furans and a host of other chlorinated organic compounds (organochlorines) which are discharged into the waterways and collected in paper sludge. Many of these compounds are known to be toxic to wildlife and humans, causing cancer and reproductive and developmental problems. Dioxin and other toxic organochlorines are of particular concern because they are very persistent in the environment and have the ability to concentrate up the food chain, so even the release of small amounts may be harmful.

Alternative bleaching methods include oxygen, hydrogen peroxide and ozone. U.S. paper manufacturers have been slow to adopt the least polluting paper making methods, though cost competitive and effective alternatives exist.

Concern about the effects of dioxin and other persistent toxins led the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes to recommend a phase out of industrial uses of chlorine. The IJC is charged with overseeing the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which calls for "zero discharge" of persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes. Creating a demand for environmentally preferable products is an important aspect of working toward zero discharge.

Chlorine-free paper is currently available at the computing site at the School of Education. I certainly hope that EnAct is successful in their efforts to make chlorine-free paper available at all ITD sites.

Mary Beth Doyle

Ecology Center

12-10-99