To the Daily:
I know this topic has been beaten to death lately, but something needs to be said. Michigan State embarrassed us Thursday night at Crisler Arena. I'm not talking about our basketball team - they played a fine game. I'm talking about the fans. Throughout the game, the small number of State fans made more noise than the entire home crowd. The one exception was when Mateen "Designated Driver" Cleaves got slapped with a technical in the second half. Granted, they have a better team to cheer for this season, but we should be supporting our team regardless of their record.
Also, I was ashamed to see so many fans leave before the end of the game. I know that unlike State, our fans have jobs and classes to go to in the morning, but there's no excuse for walking out on your team.
The marketing directors of the Athletic Department have done a good job so far this year trying to get more fan involvement at basketball games, but more needs to be done by next season. Cutting student ticket prices and bringing the entire student section closer to the floor would drastically improve fan morale and help out the team.
Our team can't dominate every year. It's time to stop being fair weathered and to start showing our players some real support.
Bob Stinchcombe
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
We should all be ashamed and embarrased. There is no shame in losing to the No. 4 team in the country, but how could we be shown up by opposing fans, especially Michigan State fans, in our own building? That's just downright sad, especially for the Michigan faithful in the seventh row with the paper bags on their heads. As fans in general, we are a sorry bunch. Our football stadium is the largest anywhere but isn't rated as one of the toughest places to play. Our hockey fans get credit, but are nowhere near the caliber of Duke basketball or Florida football fans. And basketball?
We cheer louder for free t-shirts and halftime freak shows than for alley-oops and blocked shots. Friday's Detroit Free Press even ripped our student section's inablility to provide home court advantage (actually the State game must have felt like a road game to the players). The Athletic Department is working to make Crisler Arena a more intimidating atmosphere, but the real responsibility belongs to us. As college students, our primary job is to be loud, obnoxious and vulgar, so let's get out there and make some noise.
Michigan athletics have always been among the NCAA's best and something to be tremendously proud of. It's time that our fans lived up to that tradition. GO BLUE!
Brian Galvin
Business junior
To the Daily:
This is in response to the numerous letters concerning diversity and affirmative action and, in particular, the recent letter from Benjamin Rousch ("Diversity more than just race, gender," 2/16/99). I would like to start off by saying I agree wholeheartedly with his statement that "there are many other components that must contribute more to an individual's life experience." Race and gender are only two components of one's personal history and identity. As one who studies higher education, I would agree that many other factors are important in making decisions on admission. Concerning the University, I think it is sad that so many individuals are so ignorant of the admissions process that they assume that the color of a person's skin is a dominant factor in admitting an individual to this institution.
This institution, and many others, account for many other factors besides race and gender in making admissions decisions. To assume that students of color here at the University are only here because of their skin color speaks to the racism that plagues this society as a whole. There is not a single student here at the University who has not shown their ability to compete in such an elite institution before they were admitted. In addition, other factors such as the high school one attended, the curriculum one took, the activities one participated in and whether or not one's parents are alumni are also considered in these decisions. Certainly there are many other factors that the admissions committee considers when making decisions, but for some reason race seems to disturb people the most. Why? Is it fair to consider factors that many qualified students of color and non-students of color do not have access to because of their socio-economic status or that of their families? Why isn't the Center for Individual Rights fighting against the consideration of alumni status in the admissions process, or any other discriminating factor for that matter?
The fact of the matter is that there are too many qualified students to accept everyone who is in the top 10 or 5 percent of their graduating classes to this institution. There are always some students that are not going to be admitted. That's life. But when you assume that those students who are admitted are so solely because of the color of their skin, you simply prove that racism is still a problem in the United States. I challenge individuals to look at the admissions process and stop assuming what it entails.
People need to realize that students of diverse backgrounds do contribute to the environment here at the University and beyond. The world is made up of different individuals and until people get out of their sheltered little worlds where everyone is the same, we will be faced with the racism, classism, sexism and all the other forms of discrimination that plague our society.
Melita Pope Mitchell
School of Education
To the Daily:
This letter is a response to Tom Litchford's letter to the Daily on Feb. 16 ("Gun manufacturers 'not responsible' for firearm deaths"). The people of this country should sue the manufacturers of firearms.
Too many people are killed due to the ability of anyone in the country (with a few exceptions) to own, legally or illegally, and carry a gun. Litchford writes that more people in this country are killed in car accidents than by guns, therefore reasoning that the automobile makers are better targets for litigation that the gun makers. While it is true that more people are killed in car accidents, car accidents are accidents.
Far more are killed by guns because the shooter wanted to shoot and harm them. The gun manufacturers are responsibe for this because they provide the means to kill. Automobile makers cannot be held responsible for accidents.
That so many people are killed by guns is due to the misuse of the Second Amendment by pro-gun advocates. Much of the Constitution is quite dated.
The Second Amendment was intended to allow people to have and equip a standing milita. Today, the National Guard fulfills this duty. Pro-gun advocates have suckered this country into believing in the lie that everyone needs to have a gun.
Litchford repeats the pro-gun mantra that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
While this is true, he leaves out the second, and most important part of the phrase, guns don't die, people die. How civilized of a society can we be when we consider one of our most basic and essential rights is the ability to own a gun, an object whose sole purpose is to cause harm to another, or instill the fear of harm?
Every other nation with stricter gun laws doesn't have the problem that we do, all because no one will stand up and get rid of an antiquated part of the Bill of Rights.
They aren't untouchable - they are meant by their very existence to be changed and removed when they no longer serve their orginal purpose.
Please don't say that if "the government" takes this right away, they will take every other one away too. It won't happen. This ignorance leads to the deaths of human beings everyday. Restore their dignity, and take a stand for the banishment of guns.
Brent Accurso
LSA first-year student
02-22-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |