Letters to the Editor

Michigan fans do not use Florida State cheer

To the Daily:

In response to a letter by Tony DiGiovanni ("Michigan fans must close hands in 'hail' cheer," 9/20/99), I would just like to point out that Michigan fans are not doing the Tomahawk Chop.

We are signaling a first down for our team. We're not copying the Seminoles, we're copying the referees. Try to remember this next you're at the Big House with the Michigan fans. We'll be the ones signaling a first down for the Maize and Blue.

James Cotton

Engineering junior

'U' should mandate course stressing campus conduct

To the Daily:

I don't know exactly what percentage of people have had sexual assault and crimes similar to it affect their lives in some way or other, but I do know that I am now included in that percentage.

This upsets me terribly. To see someone I care about affected by the thoughtless actions of a moron just makes me sick. Since I had never seen the problem first-hand, I didn't think much about it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Now, I must wonder, exactly what action is the University taking to prevent these things from happening? Voluntary meetings, run by student groups, which would only attract good people who would never think of committing such an act? These types of things are not adequate at all. Something has to be done to educate individuals with the potential to commit such acts.

If the University can require us to take an English course or its equivalent, they can make all incoming students and transfers take a one or two credit course on campus conduct. Perhaps it could discuss not only consequences of sexual assault and rape for both victims and perpetrators, but also for racism on campus, religious bigotry and anti-gay actions. I see only good coming from a course devoted to this and believe it should be seriously looked into. Action needs to be taken before these horrible acts are committed.

A.J. Wilson

Engineering sophomore

T-shirts should not reflect poorly on Greek system

To the Daily:

This is in response to the letter by Christina Khoury and Simi Dwahan about the degrading t-shirts worn by a handful of frat boys and its reflection on the Greek System ("T-shirt degraded women," 9/21/99). While we find these t-shirts offensive, it is absurd to hold the entire Greek System responsible for the actions of a handful of its members.

The letter claims that the entire Greek system has "crooked values." This is quite a generalization. Ironically, the letter also states that the head of the Greek system was unaware of these shirts, so these shirts are obviously not endorsed by the entire Greek System. We are not all "contributing to (the) destruction (of society)." There are actually many positive aspects of the Greek System and its members. We often contribute to the bettering of society. A few idiots in t-shirts should not affect a person's decision to join the Greek System.

Harper Gould

LSA junior Jill Peterson Engineering sophomore Katie Inman LSA senior

Reinterpreting Amendment may cost other rights

To the Daily:

As a supporter of the Bill of Rights, I find it hard to believe that a newspaper would advocate the reinterpretation of any of the Bill of Rights ("Right to bear arms?" 9/22/99). Once the government reinterprets the Second Amendment, it sets the precedent for the government to reevaluate any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. The Daily claims that "no amount of gun control will ever be sufficient" which means that it assumes that adults cannot make informed decisions about whether or not they can own a gun, and therefore we need a government institution to make that decision for us.

Yet, the Daily is pro choice. How can you advocate choice in one case and not in the other? They are the same - both situations deal with the involvement of the government into our daily lives. I hate to use a cliché, but "guns do not kill people, people do." Gun control alone will not stop violence, suicide or accidental death.

There needs to be an element of education that is lacking in American society. It comes down to an issue of personal responsibility. By taking away the right of adults to choose whether or not to own a gun, the door is opened for the government to decide that as a woman I cannot choose an abortion, or that as a newspaper you cannot print certain articles about certain subjects.

If guns are banned, why stop there? Is this something we, as Americans, want to see? I certainly hope not - once one part of the Bill of Right is changed, others will be soon to follow.

Stephanie Masta

LSA junior

Diversity is not the responsibility of TV networks

In response to the Daily's recent criticism of the level of diversity in popular television shows ("Color TV?" 9/21/99), I would like to ask a few questions that I believe have gone unasked.

First, does anyone really think that "Friends" is realistic? All racial makeup aside, the cast is not even a representative sample of white people. For that matter, the cast isn't even a representative sample of human beings in general.

In the past, the "Cosby Show" was criticized for portraying only affluent African Americans. The problems that Theo, Vanessa, Rudy and Denise encountered were right out of a fantasy world.

I recall in particular the episode in which Dr. Huxtable wouldn't let Theo buy a very expensive designer shirt. Denise offers to make a similar shirt for Theo, and in a triumph of feminism, fails miserably. The family ties hold together, though, when the shirt that Denise made wins Theo praise from his peers and turns out to be even more trendy than the one Theo had originally wanted. I don't know about you, but I don't think that scenario typifies Americans of any ethnicity.

Upon hearing about the recent outcry, one of the first things I did was feel guilty about liking "Seinfeld" (a show which contains no non-white main characters). However "Seinfeld" does feature a fair bit of Jewish culture (and New York culture) woven into the plotlines. Last time I checked, neither was completely mainstream.

Whether a cast consists of the same demographic makeup as the nation as a whole is not the issue. Nor is the issue the realism of the show in question, since few shows are actually realistic by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is that something is seen as unfair when the show's casts don't imply that everyone may aspire to all that the characters have achieved.

The question is, should networks be accountable for such things. Even more simply, is a television network a source of information that heavily impacts an individual's definition of self? As a former regular viewer of "Laverne and Shirley" and defender of the First Amendment, I argue that it does not.

Matthew Murphy

LSA senior

09-28-99