Jordan River Forum

Conference about education, not money Monday's editorial ("City decision justified," May 6) on our upcoming conference, Sexual Minority Youth in the Heartland, I wanted to thank you for clarifying the misconception that this conference has an "agenda" with respect to the upcoming National Order of the Arrow Conference. As you well stated, Sexual Minority Youth in the Heartland is an exciting opportunity for us to provide Indiana teachers, social workers and others with the resources they need to help young gays and lesbians cope with the difficulties they face. But, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the matter of conference funding that you rose in the editorial. Various units of the University, including the Chancellor's office, Residential Programs and Services and the Office of Academic Support and Diversity have made generous contributions to the support of this groundbreaking conference. But, at no time did we accept, nor did the City of Bloomington offer, a monetary contribution. Michael Craw
Steering Committee, Sexual Minority Youth in the Heartland Tenure-track support appreciated I want to commend you for your editorial support for hiring more full-time, tenure-track faculty on the Bloomington campus ("Quit hiring for the short term," April 26). I fully agree with you that the individuals in these positions make a unique and absolutely essential contribution to the long-term stability and quality of the academic mission. It is my goal to increase these positions, and I am working hard with President Brand and the deans to find a way to do so. Your support for this effort is most appreciated. Sharon S. Brehm
Chancellor International criminal court not needed I was surprised with the poor quality of the unanimously held staff editorial opinion on the (International Criminal Court) ("International Criminal Court Needed," May 9). I am guessing since it is not the regular school year -- you have a third string crew on the job. Yes, we all agree that criminals should be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, this editorial never made a single argument why a permanent court should be established to take on this task. The claim made was, "a permanent criminal court is required to ensure that such atrocities don't occur in the future." I thought the purpose of a court was to punish those who commit crimes. While the fear of punishment may be a deterrent (and the truth of this claim is up for debate), it isn't clear why a permanent court would be any better than the temporary court system. There was a very real concern for the status of U.S. military personnel under this court. Also, the jurisdiction of the court was questionable because it seems as if this court is accountable to no one -- except perhaps the U.N. Remember, this is the same body that put the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission. Finally, I am worried about the existence of an ICC for war crimes with an empty docket. What will this court do when there are no cases for it to hear? Anyone with any experience with bureaucracy will recognize that when an organization has nothing to do, it will invent something to do, and herein lies the real danger of the ICC. It is simply an excuse to exercise U.N. control and political agendas over sovereign nations. The current system works, perhaps not perfectly -- but it's shortcomings are far less than those of the ICC. Charles McIntyre
Graduate student