Letters to the Editor Use of Webcam was questionable To the Daily: An article in the Dec.7 Daily (left lying around the computing center) caught my eye today as I waited for Medline to pull up the journals I was looking for - "Watching the field: Officers use Webcam to nab minors on field." My first reaction was that it is kind of funny that people were caught on the Webcam. But then I noticed that they were spotted by a DPS officer at 2:21 a.m. The article doesn't say whether or not the officer was on duty. I imagine that he was, as even off-duty DPS officers have better things to do at 2 a.m. than surf the Web. That thought brought up a few other questions: What the hell is a DPS officer doing surfing the Web while on duty? Another officer (Skowron) was quoted as saying "We don't monitor it (the Webcam, I assume) on a regular basis. We have no protocol on it. Apparently, an officer was randomly looking at it." So no one told this officer to check the Webcam; he did it of his own volition. Which implies that we may be paying DPS officers to surf the Web. A scary thought. What is even scarier, though, is how much the incident smacks of "1984" (or "Enemy of the State," for those of you who have never bothered with Orwell). I question the intent of this camera - you can't watch the games on it! Who the hell wants to look at the stadium 24 hours a day if you can't ever see a football game? And what do they show during football games? Old footage of the empty stadium? Director of Media Relations for the University Athletic Department Bruce Madej said that the purpose of the Webcam was never to catch trespassers. "That was not a thought," he said. "It can be used for that, but it was not a thought at the beginning." But it is a thought now; how many other cameras are being used by security to look for late-night trespassers and other illegal activities? (Including "trysts" on the 50-yard line. Makes you wonder if some of that footage is being broadcast to adult Websites worldwide!) What other places and activities are being monitored? Doug Franzen School of Medicine student University's decision to settle was incorrect To the Daily: On Dec. 10 The Michigan Daily reported that Prof. Emily Cloyd agreed to a settlement of her lawsuit against the University of Michigan. This settlement included $100,000 in damages and the requirement for her only to teach in the Fall semester (classes of her choice no less). The settlement is outright fraud against the taxpayers of Michigan and the tuition-paying students of the University. The fact that the University settled this case rather that fighting it set a dangerous precedent that employees of the University do not actually have to work in order to get paid. It is not unreasonable for an employer to demand an employee take care of their health (especially at the University, which gives some of the best medical coverage available as part of its employees benefits package) and to dismiss an individual who is missing too many work days. At any institution or business other than so-called higher academia, Cloyd's actions would warrant dismissal or reassignment, not reward. For her, this settlement creates the dream job, where she only needs to work during the fall term in exchange for a year's pay and benefits. For the students, it means our tuition goes up and we lose the education that this professor can impart outside of the Fall term. Why didn't the University fight this case, and does this settlement mean any University employee does not actually have to work to get paid? Ken Heskett LSA senior Minority enrollment data is misleading To the Daily: The Dec. 3 Daily editorial on minority student enrollment contained some incorrect information. It is true that there has been a decline in the number and percentage of underrepresented minorities in our student body, but the decline is much smaller than stated. In 1995, underrepresented minorities -African American, Hispanic American and Native American students - made up 14 percent of the student body. In 1996, that number climbed slightly to 14.1 percent, but in 1997 it was back down to 13.8 percent, and 13.6 percent in 1998. This fall, underrepresented minorities made up 13 percent of the student body, including both undergraduate and graduate students. Each year we take a head count in the third week of classes of all students, then calculate the number of African American, Hispanic American and Native American students as a percentage of American students on our campus. We do not include international students in this calculation because that would distort the key issue, which is representation on our campus of American students of color. Both the Michigan Daily and the Ann Arbor News arrived at erroneous percentages by adding back in the international students. However, because they didn't have any data on international students of color, the numbers came out completely skewed. The real story is that the percentage of underrepresented minority students has declined over the past three years from 14.1 to 13 percent. The University is concerned about this trend, and we are looking at it closely. However, it's important that the University community have the correct information. Julie Peterson University Staff Students need to accept responsibility for Greek system To the Daily: I have been both an undergraduate and a graduate student at Michigan. In the five years that I have attended this institution, I have noted an almost annual trend of anti-fraternity indignation that sweeps over the campus. The non-Greek students lament the often offensive and always boorish behavior of the letter-bearing crowd. We (I include myself in the non-Greek population) make fun of their near religious zeal in adhering to the North Face and A & F dress code. We mock the idea that "brotherhood" is founded upon a case of Natural Light and swapped stories about spring break in Cancun. In short, we laugh at them. We should be crying. We are the ones who are to blame. Not them. They are ignorant and weak. They joined a group because they needed other people to tell them who they are. Feel sad for them. Be ashamed of ourselves. We come in many forms. Professors who watered down bachelor's degrees by passing these beer-addled morons (who showed up only twice all semester and whose only contribution to class discourse was "Is this going to be on the exam?"). Girls who "hook up" with them, before or after the margaritas, because they look so damn good in their baseball hats. Anyone who has stood in line trying to get into one of their parties (I call them "parties", but I'm sure that the volunteers at SAPAC have another name for them). This whole "liberal" campus, for having tolerated this bastion of non-independent thinking for so long. Me, for when I was a freshman walking across the Diag at night and didn't say anything when six of them harassed that girl walking ahead and bowed my head when they moved on to me. I look forward to the day when every frat house is razed to the ground. Until then, I suggest that everyone on this campus take a hard look at how they have contributed to the perpetuation of this most ignoble system. David Curkovic Law School student Originally on page 4A in the 1-5-2000 issue of the Daily.