Letters to the editor

Concert complications unforseeable\nAs a former Union Board director (Fine Arts Committee, 2000), I am voicing my objection, on several grounds, to the Sept. 18 staff editorial, "Can't Count on Union Board." \nThe first issue is the thinly veiled belittling of Union Board directors. These students give willingly and capably of their time and energy, often to the tune of 30 hours per week, in service to the IUB campus and community. It is cowardly, small and irrelevant to point out that UB directors "must simply be in good academic standing and not graduate before a specific date." A fitting and equally petty reply: what are the requirements for IDS staffers? \nSecondly, and this is as of late a common journalistic phenomenon, the IDS seems to be espousing the "pout and point" philosophy: something disappointing and/or troubling occurs -- surely, someone must be to blame! As the events of the past week have so clearly demonstrated, at times it is simply impossible to foresee unfortunate events. Clearly, the author of this editorial has not researched the cited issues sufficiently to understand this. \nFinally, there was no staff vote reported on this editorial. As a reader, how should I interpret this? The staff vote is a tool that I use daily to gauge the editorial staff's beliefs on the stated issue. Am I to assume in this instance that all of the IDS editors agree with this assessment of Union Board and the people who comprise it? I certainly hope this is not the case. I would like to believe that not all of the editorial staff at the IDS, who also work hard to provide a quality product for the IU campus and community, agrees with such baseless and tactless evaluations. It is disheartening to see one group of student leaders attacking another in such a careless manner. As a reader and one-time student leader, I expect more from the IDS.\nKaren Biddle\nSenior\nCity-Buskirk alliance OK\nSaving tax dollars is a great thing, but the IDS editorial board's two arguments against the city acquisition of the historic theater are both seriously flawed. \nThe city's ownership of the theater is a bargain for the community, given that private donors have already paid more than $2 million to redevelop the theater, and that having a civic theater with a secure future downtown will help ensure that locally owned restaurants and stores will benefit from crowds attending the theater's many performances and meetings several times a week. \nThe city's general fund, or checking account, spends millions a year on roads, sewers and parks. The investment to build softball fields, swimming pools and playgrounds dwarfs the relatively small amount of money spent on the Buskirk-Chumley Theatre. It is my understanding that the city spends more than three quarters of a million dollars a year on golf. Surely a community-wide arts center is at least as important as that. \nThe second issue, city control of performances, is really irrelevant. The city's purchase of the theater is the equivalent of building a softball field -- it has made a facility available. Others will manage it, pick the performances in it, and deal with the controversy that might happen once in a while when someone doesn't like a particular play or performer. Anyone involved in producing arts programming is familiar with these issues and isn't afraid of them. The city need have no involvement in whatever controversies arise. Bloomington -- and IU -- needs a community performing arts center, and it's extremely good news that the city government saw fit to seize the opportunity to add one. With the Von Lee Theater abandoned and the former Princess Theater once again empty from another failed restaurant, it's clear that the free market cannot always provide what downtown needs. Sometimes government has to step in and lend a hand, and I'm glad that this is one of those times!\nMichael Wilkerson\nAssociate professor of arts administration and academic affairs coordinator\nColumnist in the right\nJosh Claybourn's Sept. 10 column ("Re-orientation needed") was exactly on the mark. Were it not so disturbing, it would be laughable that so many environmental extremists are willing to stand up for every life form except the human kind. \nEco-terrorists who use the violent tactics described are no better than any other kind of terrorist -- or any other hate group -- and are every bit as cowardly. Furthermore, as Mr. Claybourn pointed out, those tactics are frequently counterproductive. Instead of using the "Disorientation" program to encourage illegal eco-terrorism, it would make a great deal more sense for those particular groups to advocate real problem solving -- the legal way.\nHeather Schuh\nSenior