Letters to the Editor

Library's new computer policy cuts down on porn

To the Daily:

I would just like to thank the library system for putting out its new policy restricting use of computers on the 3rd and 4th floor of the Undergraduate Library (Science Library). For as long as I can remember - but worsening significantly this year - many patrons completely lacking any affiliation to the University have been using these computers (16 on the 3rd floor, one on the 4th) for personal use with disregard for academic purposes. They use our resources to view pornographic material and gamble at online casinos, and more benignly, to "chat." Most disturbing is the fact that no one is allowed to restrict the information these patrons view, so that they can - and do - view pornography, much to the chagrin of library staff and other patrons.

The new policy becomes effective Oct. 3rd and states that only two of the computers on the 3rd floor are to be used by non-University patrons and that even those must be forfeited should a student or staff member need them. (Previously, the staff member on duty would have to request that the patron get off the computer so that the student/faculty could use it, and oftentimes the request would be refused.)

These patrons were a hindrance to many students and I myself endured more than a few confrontations, after which I felt completely powerless and indignant since there was summarily nothing that could be done.

So I congratulate the library system on this new policy and extend my appreciation for their initiative.

Luke Redman

LSA junior

Men do perpetuate the glass ceiling

To the Daily:

Jim Knapp's letter to the Daily on September 25, "Quandary of the Straight White Male," struck me as ignorant and naive. He states that the attitude of women on this campus is such that if "John Q. Whiteguy has a complaint about the way things are going, he is told to stop crying." He then goes on to state that it is a stereotype of white males to assume that "they have it easier than everyone else." He then backs up this claim with the obviously fabricated statistics that "neither himself nor 90 percent of the other white guys out there have ever racially oppressed someone or done their part to perpetuate any kind of glass ceiling."

So I'm asking Knapp to please explain to me the following: The alarming number of occurrences of male violence towards women, the general salary difference between men and women and whites and minorities, the assumptions of women's roles as caretakers of home and children in addition to a career (if desired), the feminization and racial discretion of poverty, the many so-called "feminine disorders" throughout history which includes todays prevailance of eating disorders perpetuated by males, etc.

I agree that not all straight white males have it "easy," but in comparison to those with racial, sexual, and gender differences they have certainly been given a set of somewhat "invisible" advantages that may not be so obviously to them. So I urge Knapp to take his race and ethnicity requirement with an open mind and learn a little bit about people that are different from himself.

Katie Macfarlane

LSA senior

Affirmative action deserves support

To the Daily:

I'm writing this letter to express my support for the University in its fight against the lawsuit to end affirmative action. Without affirmative action, a great many of the teachers on this campus simply would not be here. Without affirmative action, if you are female, you wouldn't be here either, especially if you are non-white. Stand up and support your University! It is your school, and the University deserves support for its stand against racism. Learn your history and defend affirmative action for all people.

Scott Newell

LSA senior

Concert review was off the mark

To the Daily:

I am writing on behalf of School of Music Jazz Department faculty and students, as well as the vast majority of jazz musicians and fans in attendance at Keith Jarrett's performance at Hill Auditorium on Sept. 23. While I certainly appreciate the fact that a review of an artistic endeavor will necessarily reflect the opinions and, in this case, prejudices of the individual reviewer, ("Jarrett: Blahing the blues away at Hill," by John Uhl 9/25/00) there is a certain level of objectivity which ought to be maintained in the process.

At the School of Music, Uhl's review of the concert was met with shock, disbelief and eventual merriment as, one by one, knowledgeable jazz students and faculty got to read his invective-laden diatribe. I wouldn't even dignify his extremely silly review with a response, except that I would hate for unsuspecting readers of your paper to be left with that review as their only connection to a concert that was, for everyone in the audience except Uhl, a magical event. Spontaneous standing ovations and wild cheering aside, the complete and utter quiet which enveloped the capacity audience during the performance was just one measure of the level of musicianship and artistic excellence on display.

Not content with insulting Jarrett in inappropriate and ignorant fashion, Uhl also proceeded to insult the audience, describing them as "tight-assed." I am assuming that he does not plan to have a career in journalism as that sort of immature pronouncement does not bode well for his future literary endeavors.

I would also like to correct Uhl on a few of his "facts." As a professional jazz pianist I can assure him that occasionally singing or humming along as we improvise is not a "fetish," i.e. it is not a practice "whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). The ECM Record Label has the enormous respect of every jazz artist and connoisseur that I know, even those who may not always be a fan of the music recorded by the label, as they have slavishly allowed artists to perform their own music under the most ideal recording circumstances possible - often at a serious financial cost to the company.

This concert was also certainly not an example of the trend to feature "blockbuster jazz names" on the same ticket in some arbitrary fashion. As he correctly pointed out, Jarrett, DeJohnette and Peacock have been playing together religiously for 20 years and are one of the most highly regarded piano trios in the history of the music.

If Uhl feels that jazz can only be performed authentically in whorehouses and that it has to be "dirty," I guess that is his prerogative. Fortunately there are millions of us out there who love hearing the myriad evolutions that the music has gone through since the early 1900's and who can actually enjoy and appreciate the musical genius of artists like Keith Jarrett in a variety of settings, from concert halls to jazz clubs. I would hope that Uhl can learn to temper his pompous assertions with a bit of objectivity and to not try and present opinions as fact. It will allow his readers to take him more seriously.

Ellen Rowe

Associate prof. of jazz studies School of music