Jordan River Forum

Kudos to Ryan Lengerich for the great article entitled, "Can you believe those Hoosiers?" I graduated from the School of Business in 1970, and while I have always been a big IU basketball fan, I must admit that my faith in "The General" left me about five years ago, when he began to think that he was above the game and his fellow coaches. Now comes Iron Mike Davis and his band of "Underdogs" to restore my belief in IU basketball! The IU-Duke game was unbelievable, only to be followed by the "rain of threes" on Kent State. This team is gutty, and regardless of what happens in Atlanta, I trust IU will hang this Final Four banner in Assembly Hall, right up there with those "special banners" opposite our National Championships. See you in Atlanta! Dave Ryan
Alumnus The mural may stay,but contributing money can be just as offensive I read the piece regarding Chancellor Brehm's rationale why the mural should stay put. Wonderful for the mural. There was, however, a very disturbing aspect of the article, one that emphasizes IU's desire to keep everyone happy while not necessarily maintaining the highest standards: "$800,000 has been included in the budget to supplement IU's Strategic Hiring Initiative, a program designed to attract minority and female faculty." What a quote! The University, which is in a budget crunch, has found close to $1 million simply to diversify the faculty. When I read this, it smacks of intolerance, racism and hate. A fund has been established to hire people who are not heterosexual white men. That is, in essence, what the money is allocated for. Shouldn't IU focus on bringing in the best professors regardless of race, sexual orientation and gender? Ignoring all members of this hated majority will not solve IU's problem. Firing established professors who aren't statistically diverse so the University might be able to hire those who are is intolerable, but with a practical cap on the number of faculty positions, such will be necessary to "diversify the faculty." IU should think before adopting a policy that effectively discriminates, especially when the policy is an action supposedly designed to end discrimination on campus. Robert L. Oprisko
Senior All U.S. companies face problems, placing tariff on steel won't help Permit me to respond to Tom Vrahoretis' recent letter (Tariffs on steel important to many American Families, March 26). Mr. Vrahoretis contends that it's not "gross inefficiency" that puts the United States steel industry at a disadvantage, but rather legacy costs and environmental issues. OK, U.S. steel companies may be at a disadvantage with respect to global competition because of legacy costs (retirement benefits, health care, pension funds…) and environmental issues that foreign companies don't face. But all other U.S. companies have to contend with these same issues. If we accept Mr. Vrahoretis' argument that U.S. steel industries need tariffs on foreign goods to offset these conditions, then we also have to agree that similar tariffs should be applied to virtually every other imported foreign product that competes with a similar one from the United States. Where will that lead us? Benjamin Schults
Lecturer in Business Communication, Kelley School of Business