Dear Editor,
I read with considerable interest and pride your editorial regarding academic integrity in the Oct. 20 issue of The Eagle. Your explicit support for the efforts by the faculty and staff of the institution to maintain the highest possible standards of integrity in our common academic work is important. But, when it is all said and done, the AIC embodies principles of behavior that only students can completely enforce. Students must not only be scrupulous in the conduct of their personal academic lives but they must actively discourage anything less in their friends and colleagues. Your editorial conveys that message loud and clear.
You have my appreciation and admiration for taking this stand and I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues when I say thanks for adding your influential voice to this common mission.
Neil Kerwin Provost
Dear Editor,
On Saturday, Oct. 18, students from all over campus, alumni, as well as community members came to see comedian Margaret Cho perform at Bender Arena. Her humor took a candid and confrontational tone in regards to sexuality, religion, and politics, which could have offended certain students on campus.
The Student Confederation and the Student Union Board in no way endorses the political or social views of any of the entertainment we provide for the campus community. We are dedicated to providing diverse programming that allows all students to have interest in our events. Margaret Cho's performance and Homecoming week in general, allowed the Student Confederation to attract many students who are traditionally left out of SC programming.
I would like to formally apologize to any student or member of the AU community who felt disenfranchised, frustrated or upset with Margaret Cho's humor. The Student Confederation recognizes that her routine could be considered inflammatory and offensive. I encourage any student who took offense to Margaret Cho's comments to please contact me at (202) 885-6423 or e-mail me at president@studentconfederation.org .
Nicholas T. Terzulli President Student Confederation
Dear Editor,
AU students, most being over 18, are legal adults; just like any other legal adult, it is inappropriate for the legal or disciplinary situations of AU students to be shared with anyone. Such is the case, however, with regard to the official policies of the University Administration on the issues of alcohol and drug abuse.
Parental notification, while a nice idea for those attempting to overcome the problem of college drinking in a single bound, inappropriately widens the University's jurisdiction and thereby breaches students rights by revealing aspects of their behavior that only they should have the right to disclose.
The Administration appears to recognize the maturity level of its students in other areas of campus life: University bureaucrats aren't calling parents when their son or daughter is doing poorly in a class or doesn't attend enough classes. But who knows what's next if the current trend continues? Parent-Professor conferences? Meetings with President Ladner and the 'rents over Fall Break?
Students attend AU with the understanding that they have the power and prerogative to govern themselves. At the University level, students live under policies of their own creation, whether through direct referendum or by representation on governing bodies. To take the adjudication of alcohol violations out of students' hands signifies another step toward removing student self-governance, an aspect of the University system that sets it apart from most other institutions in the country.
Do you oppose the University's childish parental notification policy?
If so, join our campaign by e-mailing YouthRights@aol.com and expressing your interest. Together, the student body can hopefully bring about a more mature policy for our campus community.
Alex Koroknay-Palicz Alum President National Youth Rights Association.
Dear Editor,
One's heart goes out to Heather Blandford. She obviously has such little faith in the thousands of years old institution of marriage that she fears it could not withstand such a withering assault as, oh, gay and lesbian partners getting some of the same Social Security benefits as a straight married couple. Her concern is misdirected. Though she acknowledges, in passing, "the culture of adultery, divorce, and frivolity," she should be more concerned with the total sham her fellow heterosexuals have made of the institution.
If she and her fellow conservatives really want to protect marriage, shouldn't they be advocating making divorce illegal? Or why not remove ALL legal benefits from marriage? If marriage is "a very mystical, sacred, revered state," why muddy it up with such secular matters as taxes and survivor benefits? That way only those with the purest of motives will enter into it, like gay and lesbian partners do now.
Michael Dolan Alum '90
Dear Editor,
Heather Blandford's editorial against same-sex marriage has so many flaws of reasoning and fact that it would be difficult to address them all in the space of a short letter. Let me take a sentence out of the first paragraph as an illustration of her overall slapdash approach.
Blandford writes: "In an era where a priest who deserts his family to live with his lover can be a spiritual leader, I am afraid." Assuming she is talking about the Rev. Gene Robinson, New Hampshire Episcopal bishop-elect, Blandford is playing fast and loose with the facts of Robinson's marriage, divorce and life with his current partner, Mark Andrew. The decision to end the marriage was mutual. Robinson met Andrew after the divorce. Robinson has been a committed father, and his children support him and Andrew. Those are the facts. But since Blandford has made up her mind about Robinson, facts either are not required or can be altered at will.
Blandford certainly has the right to oppose same-sex marriage. But one would hope that a university student would do a better job at assembling an argument and handling facts than Blandford has done in her op-ed.
Stephen R. Swayne Dartmouth University
