Dear Editor,
I noticed a slight mistake in your headline article "Scholar speaks on Islam" (Nov. 13, 2003). You note that "Both Indonesia and Pakistan have women in higher positions than the United States and Great Britain." The current prime minister of Pakistan, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, is a male. However, Pakistan was under rule by deposed Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (female) in 1993 until being ousted in 1997. Other than this error, the article is well-written. It is inspiring to see such articles published, as they enable the readers to capture a glimpse of Islam from a different standpoint. Do keep it up!
Ali Hassan Ayub Sophomore, CAS
Dear Editor,
I look forward to reading Erin Fagan's follow-up article to "A little something extra: AU Honors program boosts normal education," in which she interviews the many students who are dissatisfied with the program.
Dan Zak Junior, CAS
Dear Editor,
I was dismayed to learn that one of President Ladner's 15 points is to drastically cut the number of adjunct professors. I believe that adjunct professors are a vital part of American University's appeal. If our motto is "ideas into action, action into service," what better way than with adjunct faculty? The adjunct status of these professors bridges the gap between the ideas and theories of academia and practical application through action and service in the field.
AU prides itself on being a diverse, dynamic institution, and one of the oft-cited strengths of this University is experiential learning. I can think of no better way to learn about human rights than from a professor who was a U.N. human rights observer in Central Asia. Or the possibility of taking a class on women in national security taught by the nation's first female four-star general. To drastically reduce adjuncts is to effectively sever the connection between academia and real life.
I am in the School of International Service, but I think I can speak for all schools when I say that adjuncts make a huge impact in the classroom. Adjuncts bring an outlook to instruction and to the classroom that, by definition, a full-time professor simply cannot. I am by no means advocating a reduction in full-time faculty, but by increasing full-time professors at the expense of adjunct faculty, AU will be cheating its students and lowering the caliber of the education we receive.
Nicole Washington Sophomore, SIS
Dear Editor,
As a regular listener of WAMU, I have to say that the manner in which Susan Clampitt was removed from her position as executive director of the station should be a cause for general dismay.
I have no knowledge of the facts of the matter other than those reported in the Washington Post. I assume that those accounts are comprehensive and fair. In view of their consequences, they had better be. The reports make it plain that there is more than one side to the issues involved. Is the clash with station personnel a measure of the challenge that Clampitt's vision for the future of the station created, or poor management style, or a mixture of both? Is the state of the station's finances a reflection of several years of imaginative risk-taking in building a greater support base, or poor financial management or a mixture of both?
As a listener of the station, I am strongly persuaded by results. Clampitt has made WAMU a rich source of news, analysis and diversified programming. She has also made it in Washington's radio station. Through her vision and creative efforts the station has become a great public service.
Even these accomplishments do not necessarily remove the charges of poor management. One must defer to the rights and responsibilities of WAMU's parent organization, to make a determination in this matter. The process and the manner in which it was implemented, however, are open to question.
It is a matter of decency to allow an employee with whom one has differences of view or of style to resign quietly, outside the glare of publicity. To do otherwise is unwarranted and unconscionable. Yet this is exactly what Benjamin Ladner, the president, has done to Clampitt. The newspaper reports indicated that complaints of Clampitt's management had surfaced over a period of time.
Yet, Ladner acted summarily and swiftly upon the heels of the publication of the highly visible articles, the first on the front page of the Post. Ladner's timing, putting Clampitt's dismissal in the spotlight's glare, could not have been more unnecessary or more spiteful.Unless we vehemently object to his handling of this matter, we are all somehow diminished.
The very nature of Ladner's style calls the decision itself into question. His actions amount to a public trashing of a woman whose worst mistakes, even if all the allegations are true, deserved something better our gratitude. Ladner's response to a case of allegedly poor management is an extraordinary example of the worst management. It is an offense to honor and decency and itself demands review.
Law B. Watkins Dickerson, Md.
