Dear Editor:
The Feb. 2 edition of The Eagle included an article discussing the use of cellular phones as the primary means of providing telephone service to the residence halls starting in fall 2005. We would like to address some issues raised in the article and outline the background of this initiative.
In a press release issued on April 30, 2002 and available on the Web at
Excerpts from the release, which was reported widely in the general press at the time, include:
"The project will reduce costs while increasing student and staff services through a host of new and future wireless technology applications. Over time, it will free the University from the cost of maintaining at least half of its current wire-line phones.... As student use increases, AU will no longer need to provide the current level of telephone service or hardwire in its residence halls. To encourage use, rate plan discounts will be provided to AU students and staff as part of the University's corporate plan..."
The implementation details of this initiative are far from complete. The use of cell phones in the residence halls is just one part of an overall, long-term migration of the University's existing telephone system to new technology. The target date of fall 2005 was selected to allow time to investigate new technology and to allow adequate time to consult with the community. ÿ
The wireless technology currently installed throughout the campus provides excellent cell phone reception for subscribers of Cingular Wireless and T-Mobile. ÿThe University has contracted with these carriers to provide special discounts for students and to ensure that cell phone coverage is strong inside of residence halls. We will continue to explore the possibility of adding other service providers to this system.
The recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to allow cell phone users to transfer numbers between carriers provides an important capability to students, but was not the basis for the wireless initiative. A report in The Washington Post cited by The Eagle incorrectly reported that existing room phone numbers could be transferred to cell phones. Although this is not possible, we are studying ways in which a call placed to a student's University-assigned phone number can be made to also ring on their cell phone.
We look forward to our two departments working collaboratively over the next several months to explore issues that have been identified related to the use of cell phones in the residence halls. We also look forward to involving the Residence Halls Association, Student Confederation, the General Assembly and other interested students in our discussions. Please feel free to contact either one of us if you would like to discuss any of these issues or participate in future discussions.
Carl Whitman ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ Executive Director e-operations
Julie Weber Executive Director Housing and Dining Programs ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
Dear Editor:
I was outraged to read that The American University has sold out to corporate America with an agenda of having 100% cell phone useÿin the dormsÿby the fall of 2005. I am a part of the minorityÿof theÿstudent body (10%) who do not believe inÿcell phoneÿuse. Iÿshould not be forced to purchase one at the will of T-Mobile and Cingular cell phone contractsÿimposed by our university.
Stephanie A. Furman, Junior School of Public Affairs
Dear Editor:
I felt compelled to dispel the inaccurate portrayal of the International Peace & Conflict Resolution (IPCR) program that was featured in The Eagle. The author, Josh Kraushaar, affirms that the utility of force is enough to resolve conflicts and the goal of achieving peace is simply a futile endeavor. I find the author's outlook indicative of the circular logic that legitimizes force as the only choice for achieving peace. His misinterpretation of peace studies neglects to comprehend the diversity of the IPCR program.
Josh has unknowingly demonstrated two critical aspects of IPCR studies. First, we often attack what we don't understand or that which threatens our existence, thus, failing to consider the full range of strategic choices and actions.
Second, conflict is often created where there was no conflict before by simply rejecting the legitimacy and dignity of others (e.g. "goofy hat"). This type of rhetoric is threatening and symptomatic of narcissism. The article fails to reflect a sincere dialogue, but instead demonstrates an individual's bias against people like Adam Shapiro and professor Said who dedicate themselves to non-violent social action and change.
IPCR strives to reject the 'might makes right' approach to world politics, and conversely, is dedicated to a longer-term, sustainable path to peace. In the process, IPCR does not preclude the use of force under certain circumstances, but as professor Said has said, "to never be a cheerleader for violence" - no matter who your team is.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Given Josh's position of responsibility with The Eagle, the onus is on him to acquire an understanding of the individuals, field
of study, and cultural practices he opines on so his conclusions reflect a standard of integrity that is useful and constructive, instead of using the common forum of The Eagle to express inaccurate assumptions.
Peter Salon Junior School of International Service
