Tuition hike shows officials uncaring toward students Thanks for saying what needed to be said regarding the most recent tuition hike. I'm an '82 accounting grad who was seriously planning on getting an MBA from IU. I was going to do that through either the Online MBA program or by moving to Bloomington (with family of five) upon retirement from 20 years in the Marine Corps. That is, until I checked on the cost of an MBA from IU. I was stunned by the increase. I checked on several other colleges and found that almost all of them were less expensive than IU and most were considerably less. As a result, when I get my advanced degree, it will not be from Indiana University or any satellite thereof. And now I see that the administration is raising the cost of an education once more. This saddens me. And yes, it has become a business. The bottom line is that administrators out to make a name for themselves (or the school) forget who the real customer is: the student. In doing such, they've taken the Public out of the University.
Maj. Matthew Brackman Class of '82
Alternative to tuition raise exists So, Myles Brand, you say you care about the students of Indiana University, and that this tuition raise was necessary for improving faculty retention and increasing research funding. In my years of studying here at IU, I truly have had some excellent professors, and it is important that we keep all these great teachers. We also need to put more money into research in order to maintain the quality of our many strong academic programs. However, I propose a different idea than Mr. Brand's. Instead of charging poor, hard-working students even more money that they don't have, why doesn't Mr. Brand simply take the lead in self-sacrifice for his supposedly "beloved" university and donate half of his exorbitant salary to the cause. Or better yet, why doesn't he just donate his full salary and resign as president since his numerous mistakes and shortcomings as president have cost the university more money than any tuition raise could bring in.Tim Siegert Graduate student
Students should ask for more from professors Dear IU students: Okay, so the board of trustees, with the resounding endorsement of President Brand, has raised our tuition by 7.5 percent beginning this fall, primarily so that our professors can have 4 percent to 6 percent raises. There is nothing we can do about that. What we CAN do, however, is demand our money's worth. Please stand up for your ailing bank accounts and demand that your professors give you every bit of the education, time and attention you deserve, and are paying through your teeth for. We attend the most expensive state university in Indiana, so don't accept anything less than the best educational experience you can possibly get. This is not meant to say that all our professors aren't giving us what we are owed, (many are truly amazing teachers and mentors) but you all know some who aren't. Please students, demand accountability from all levels of the university, from the administration to your professors and beyond. Please don't think of this money as nothing more than two meals out a month as President Brand suggests. This is your education -- your future. Demand more from it.Marcie Brown Law student
Tuition raise shows difficult position University is in The decision to raise tuition by 7.5 percent truly demonstrates how Indiana University is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I fully agree that IU must make competitive wages for faculty a priority, and the ideal response is for the state of Indiana (if our state officials honestly think education is a top priority) to aggressively fund and support Indiana's higher education institutions. The state's unwillingness to put its money where its mouth is has backed universities into a corner, forcing its students to pick up the ever-expanding bursar bill. What is offensive, however, about the university's response and justification for the increase is President Brand's assertion that the increase in nothing more than dinner and pizza. Such a statement is an oversimplification at best. At its worst, it demonstrates an ever-widening gulf between those who run the university and those who attend it. $335.48 buys groceries for my husband and I for almost seven weeks. It buys my auto insurance for a year, or it covers the cost of a semester's books. No, to many of my peers and I, $335.48 is not just pocket change. My response to President Brand is that his words, his justification, matter. And his lack of both compassion and reason demonstrates a pronounced malevolence about the welfare of the students at this beloved institutions.Rachel Reiners-Jorgensen Senior
Why the tuition hike is good for students When I was an undergraduate, Stanford University set out to raise $1 billion from alumni for the same reasons that the IU trustees gave last Tuesday: to remain competitive. In the event, the alumni contributed this amount and more. With the money that flowed in then and still flows in, the university is able to afford to match just about any offer for faculty they want and to build all manner of very impressive facilities. So, why is it that these alumni were willing to lay out so much money to help an institution they no longer attend hire faculty with whom they will never have a class? It isn't just from the goodness of their hearts, but rather for one simple reason: As long as Stanford is perceived to be one of the top universities in the country, they all hold degrees from a top university, regardless of how good their actual education was. Even if they got their education and degrees decades earlier when Stanford wasn't a top school, the value of their degrees increases as the reputation of their alma mater grows. So, they can "improve" their education simply by making it possible to hire famous, highly visible faculty that will essentially give the university (and by extension the alumni themselves) good PR. To improve a university's standing, nothing is as important as simple cold, hard cash. As someone who has also forgone many pizza dinners over the course of my undergraduate and graduate studies, I understand fully the increased burdens that fall squarely on those who have the least ability to pay, namely students who don't have fat salaries coming in. However, consider that the more IU is able to improve its standing among the nation's universities, the greater the future value of your degree will become. Those of you who are students will be tuition payers for only a few more years, but with luck you will be IU alumni for the rest of your lives. So although the students may not always see the direct benefits of this spending, when you are alumni you will still reap benefits from whatever reputation that money is able to buy after you have moved on. Of course, this might be cold comfort to those paying now, but it really shouldn't come as a surprise that all three alumni elected trustees and student trustee Hertzler all voted for this increase. Perhaps they are not so out of touch with the interests of their constituencies as you might think.Doug Karpa-Wilson Doctorate student
Article about Knight speech contains errors This was fair to poor evaluation of the event. If you are reporting facts that aren't facts then you are telling untruths that plague Bob Knight. First, it was Red Grow who was equipment manager at IU when Knight came to campus. Second, he isn't a sheriff nor on the force as a regular, but his name is Herb, the man who always helped Knight park and leave the Opry quickly. Now, we the world have been fighting you the writers to report the facts and do your homework before you put anything into print. Retractions are slaps in the face to the innocent, or are they like "makeup" calls made by officials because they blew the chance at reporting the facts. Either way, retractions are on the inside of the paper but where they should be is in the headlines with names so we the public realize that we should discount the reporting because the error ratio is too high. What is the difference between making a story and reporting an event? Could it be fact, truth, and no omissions? Opinions should be declared as such with each statement of opinion.Bruce Williams Nashville, Ind.
Illegal dumping in Jordan River has to stop Nearly every day I walk along the Jordan River as it passes through Dunn Meadow. I have often noticed the changes in the river as waste water from the Theatre and Business School construction projects. I thought surely the physical plant or whatever department monitors the environmental impact of these projects must have people who are aware of how these projects are handling waste water. As tough as that seems to be on the river ecosystem, it must be OK, or someone would intervene. A few months back, another student noticed the same problem, and knew it wasn't OK for waste water to be dumped into the Jordan River. The powers-that-be put a stop to it. Well, the problem has returned. On many days during the past several weeks, I've noticed increased turbidity in the Jordan River. Wednesday morning, June 6, I had a digital camera with me as I walked to campus and took a picture. Perhaps this photographic evidence and some follow-up by the IDS staff can result in the powers-that-be reminding the project directors that the rules have not changed. It is not OK to dump untreated waste water into the Jordan River.Patricia Buchanan Doctoral candidate
Casey Martin column unfounded It seems obvious that Brian Longly knows very little (if anything at all) about the PGA. He calls the PGA "snobs" and says that they disgust him. If he is like most people who don't understand what this case is really about, this disgust stems from an unfounded perception of elitism on the part of the PGA. In fact the PGA is anything but elitist. Anyone who can meet the standards that have been the tradition in golf since the inception of the PGA can play in the PGA. In fact, the PGA never told Casey Martin that he couldn't play; they simply said that he had to play the game in the same way as everyone else. Longly says, "The fact that golfers were so willing to prevent a golfer like Martin from participating, because he would have to use a cart, and just because of what it would do to their precious game is disgusting to me." I find it much more disgusting that someone as uninformed would even consider writing about this issue. Walking is a vital part of the game. Jack Nicklaus said that they should take all of the justices out to walk 18 holes (no golf, just walking) so that they would understand that golf is just as much a physical game as mental. So when Longly writes, "Martin is a unique individual in that, despite his leg disability, he can still golf and golf well ..." he is just wrong. The definition of being able to golf well according to the PGA includes being able to walk the requisite amount of holes as well as being able to swing the club. Just because I can drive a car doesn't mean that I should be allowed to drive on the Indy 500. In fact I shouldn't be allowed because I don't have the necessary skills -- very few would disagree with me on this point. However, because the sport in question is golf, the question becomes less clear for most people who don't understand the game. Carts have never been permitted in PGA tournaments, and should not be (the fact is, they are bad for the courses). What if Martin decides next that he wants to play in the NBA, but can't because all the running will worsen his condition? Will the Supreme Court allow him to ride a horse up and down the court, with complete disregard for what it will mean to the other players, the game's traditions, and the (basketball) court itself? If the Supreme Court were actually concerned with justice and not simply with appearances, they would have ruled in favor of the PGA -- in favor of those who want to hold all people to the same standard. However, the court, in sync with the attitude of the country, has decided that not all people were created equal and that some people deserve to be treated differently. I guess George Orwell was right when he wrote in "Animal Farm" that "Some animals are more equal than others."Jared Nordblom Senior
Mitchel's column raises interesting points I read with great interest Mr. Mitchel's exposition on historical inaccuracies prevalent in films, "Historical Accuracy Tossed Aside," and I have a few thoughts to add. What is sad about this trend in Hollywood is that people who are ignorant of facts come away believing that what is contained in the film is historical fact. Unfortunately, these people don't seem to realize that producers sacrifice historical facts in the interest of large profits and their own personal ideologies. I mention producer's ideologies because moviegoers are at the mercy of their own personal belief systems. Thus, Hollywood often fails miserably in presenting the truth, and those who want to understand history accurately are advised to further research the historical subject matter portrayed in films. Martin Scorcese, one of Hollywood's most prominent directors, once offered a partial explanation as to why films are often made to contradict reality. He stated that movies portray our hopes and our dreams. Therefore, films are tailored to satisfy moviegoer wants and desires. Moviegoers should realize this, but unfortunately many don't. The point is that people looking to Hollywood for historical study are doing themselves a great disservice. However, if they are not interested in knowing the truth about history, then that's their prerogative. But those who do want to know the truth need to take historical films with a grain of salt, and scratch below the surface to find that truth.Kirk Gleason Doctoral student
