Jordan River Review

Starbucks protesters not anti-Semitic\nIn response to Josh Hamerman's column, "Don't boycott Starbucks" (Tuesday, Nov. 19), I find it amazing how much people generalize. To simply call them anti-Semitic is simply an attempt to justify ignoring the issues that they raise, and it de-values all of the suffering that the Jewish people really have gone through at the hands of anti-Semitics. For instance, Hamerman states that, "Heaping blame for the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts onto Israel, without mentioning the human rights abuses committed by the Arab states and the Palestinian Authority, is anti-Semitic." Does this justify Israeli war crimes by saying that, in effect, "They started it!" Maybe both sides should be sat down in two corners and given a time-out. They act like children, so treat them that way. And to also try to justify Israeli actions in comparison to Iraq (genocide), China (massacres with tanks) and Russia (tanks, again) does not exactly place Israel in a good light.\nPerhaps the protesters were one sided, but they certainly were not anti-Semitic. But what is also one sided is to present the offer of a Palestinian state from 2000 without presenting what concessions the Palestinians would have to make to get their state. Obviously, if the deal simply gave them everything they wanted, they would have taken it. If it was really as good as Hamerman said, then obviously the concessions must have been enormous to force them to reject it. With the state of mind of many Americans, it might be difficult for me to say this, but I see no difference between strapping a bomb to your body and blowing up a building or bulldozing it with a tank while people are still inside. Both are disgusting atrocities that should not be used to justify each other.\nRemember, you have to know the facts to have an informed opinion. If you do not know the facts, and you have an opinion, it can't be yours. So the question is, just whose opinion do you have?\nXavier Quach\nSenior\nChange in SRSC dress code is a\nsuperfluous measure\nThis letter is in response to the article regarding the imposing of a dress code at the SRSC and HPER. As a frequent user of the facilities, I feel that the enforcement of a dress code is an infringement on a student's ability to freely utilize the facilities. One of the gym's most appealing aspects is that there are very few restrictions and students have the ability to express their individualism freely. In all honesty, is it such a major issue? Do people really have nothing better to complain about? And although there currently appears to be some complaining about the current attire, I can assure you that there will be significantly more objections should a code be imposed. Countless gym users (both male and female) never wear sleeves. A dress code would result in considerably more people who would be affected negatively, as opposed to the minor amount of users that would be satisfied by it. A recent IDS article ("Cut-offs could be cut out," Tuesday, Nov. 19) comments on sweat's negative wear and tear on the equipment, but that rarely occurs due to the SRSC and HPER employees' diligent work on the upkeep of machines. Overall, as a daily user of the gym (and a wearer of cut-offs), I feel that this issue is absolutely superfluous. If people sincerely feel uncomfortable as a result of others' attire, then they need to be more focused on why they are in the gym in the first place. Participants should concentrate more on their own objectives and goals in the gym, instead of worrying what others are wearing. I feel restricted in sleeves, and I'm sorry if my bulging muscle intimidates some. Instead, maybe they should look at my "sleevelessness" as a motivational factor.\nMatan Korrub\nJunior\nCollege should be prep for real world, not 'boozing'\nIs Jamieson Hawkins ("Better late than never," Tuesday, Nov. 19) seriously as flaky as she comes off? Let me get it straight: She's complaining about attendance policies? She gives numerous potentially (in her eyes) valid reasons for showing up late to class. Among them are oversleeping and late buses. But her reason smacks the reader in the face in the first paragraph: She's out late boozing at the Bluebird. So late, in fact, that she can't wake up for class, thus flushing her (though likely her parents') money down the proverbial crapper. So, though she's been irresponsible, she passes off the blame for a bad grade (required attendance) on school/professor policies. Ever heard of accountability? Hawkins acts like she has, but clearly she hasn't. The real world doesn't accept "I was out late drinking last night" as an excuse for being late (or not showing up) to work. Isn't that what college is for? To prepare students for the real world? This kind of behavior isn't preparatory ... it's fantasy. And we wonder why we're the No. 1 party school. \nRobert DeWitte\nSenior\nDrinking age set at 21 for a reason; you can wait \nThis is a response to Romana Asi's column, "Fake IDs: Why we need them" (Wednesday, Nov. 20). The reason that the drinking age in our country is 21 is not some sort of evil plot to deprive people of their newfound adulthood. Our lawmakers decided to put this age limit on alcohol consumption because, depending on how fast an individual's body matures, the brain may not be fully developed until age 21. While drinking alcohol at any age destroys brain cells, it's apparently much more harmful during the formative years of the brain. As for your advocation of fake IDs: If you disagree with the law in our country, blatantly disregarding it isn't a very intelligent way of dealing with it. \nWhen you get arrested, neither the police nor the judge will care that you think the law is wrong. It's still the law, and it still applies to you. Bottom line: Just calm down, and wait until you turn 21 to drink! It's just a beverage. I think you can deal with the wait.\nChristine Boone\nJunior\nSpilled milk not worth crying over\nRomana Asi ("Fake IDs: Why we need them," Wednesday, Nov. 20) makes the following statement, "The U.S. should be compatible with global standards and must not fall into the hole of being behind like they are with telecommunications and the metric system." But I must ask Asi: Is the race to drink a competition I am unaware of? Are there international unions made where the United States is losing the drinking war? The answer is quite obviously no, and to further contradict your complacent outcry, you claim that drinking will happen anyway and indeed it will, but your notion of changing the law is to cut down on rebellious underage drinking. My suggestion to the minors that feel the same as Asi: Don't cry over spilt milk. Drink it.\nDeryck Ramey\nSenior\nIU owes it to us to take action in porno scandal\nIndiana University has a responsibility to vigorously act against those involved with the pornography scandal. They owe it to the alumni and donors who care about the University's image. They owe it to the parents of the students who choose dormitory life with the feeling that it is a safer haven for their children. And they owe it to the other 37,900 students who care about the integrity their degrees will carry. Passive inquiry is not an option. IU can easily find concerned alumni with high-experienced criminal law backgrounds who can take on the porno industry. They solicited students and filmed on campus without permission. They plan to release a film recognizing the University without permission. They threaten the reputation of the University. While criminal charges may be weak, punitive damages from the wealthy porno industry are worth pursuing. The so-called release forms should be verified, the ages of the students be verified, those in the dorms should be reprimanded for behavior on campus and those in the fraternities should be reviewed by their Boards to ensure rules of conduct were followed. All channels available should be vigorously pursued. IU paid $800,000 to remove an unpopular athletic director and much more to remove a coach who could not uphold the reputation of the University. If they truly want to protect the reputation of our university, then they need to spare no expense to pursue this manner.\nWilliam West\nAlum\n'Bandage Hard' campaign could treat Kirkwood\nJudd Arnold claims in "Tensions in Meeting" (Wednesday, Nov. 20) that Synergy ticket members, "Didn't take their loss so well." As a member of the Synergy ticket, it is necessary that students know that we aren't resentful of our loss, but disheartened by the loss of all students. Furthermore, the sponsors of the bill which demands the detailed budget, Samir Patel and Dietrich Willke, were not candidates on the Synergy ticket. Actually, Patel was a Kirkwood ticket member.\nKirkwood executives claim, "Our primary goal is to represent the student body." If this is their goal, I would hate to see what IU would become had they some agenda other than student representation. Project Vote Hard was a blatant failure. IU will not receive increased funding because of this project and its insignificant effects on elections. But it is obvious that we need educational funding for remedial English; our IUSA execs didn't realize that "hard" is an adjective and not an adverb. \nTensions rise again because Blair Greenberg can't fulfill his requirements as treasurer. I doubt the claims against Blair are "pretend" politics and are probably just miscommunications between Blair and Congress. Budgets are a requirement of the job, and with the constant reminder of corporate fraud, it is a time when financial accountability has taken precedence. There shouldn't be any controversy in these financially prudent times. Greenberg should be compliant.\nThere has also been controversy over Blair's appointment to the Presidential Search Committee. I will agree that Blair is intelligent and not afraid to speak out. If requirements are set, but not necessary in the appointment process (i.e. filling out an application as a requirement), then even though I haven't applied, could you choose me to interview to be President, Blair? You know me, and we know this won't violate Judd's principals.\nIf Kirkwood continues with such brilliance as they continually prove, they might have to start a "Bandage Hard" campaign. This would entail training medical personnel how to properly treat them after all the masochistic acts are complete. Stop the hemorrhaging, Kirkwood, and start acting on the student body's behalf. \nJon Schurger\nJunior\nAugusta National policy an issue of morality, not legality\nI find the Editorial Board's decision to emphasize the right of Augusta National to discriminate in the staff editorial ("Opponents of Augusta policy have options," Monday, Nov.18) troubling. Moreover, to argue that one of their viable options is to create a country club with a "women's only" policy mitigates the reality of contemporary institutionalized sexism in the U.S. To argue that "Burk is the one who is incorrect" for insisting that Augusta National is wrong for excluding women from their membership ranks confuses legality with morality. Using your logic, abolitionists were wrong and slaveholders were right; the suffragists were wrong and those opposing female enfranchisement were right; and Rosa Parks was wrong and the bus driver was right. While private organizations have a right to discriminate on the basis of whatever they wish, when these private actions make their way into the public arena, there is a civic obligation to challenge this legal discrimination.\nAfter the civil rights movements of the '60s and '70s, private clubs became the last bastion of legal discrimination. State-sanctioned legal discrimination, which had existed since colonial times, was now illegal. Thus, when Bob Jones built Augusta National in 1932, African Americans were being lynched and segregated under Jim Crow and Caucasian women had been recently enfranchised in 1920. Thus, even if contemporary people of color and women had real access to membership at the likes of Augusta National, they would have had to overcome a historic disadvantage in order to have the required wealth.\nTo argue for a "separate but equal" country club with a women's only policy decidedly misses the point: Access to the likes of Augusta National means access to places where important business is conducted, social capital is expanded and decisions are made away from official settings. Private clubs, which are often characterized by their exclusion of Caucasian women and people of color, are examples of institutional discrimination.\nTo support the exclusionary policy of Augusta National behind the patina of a "right" places you on the wrong side of progress. The issue is not one of legality. The issue is a moral one.\nLawrence J. Hanks\nAssociate Professor, Dept. of Political Science\nBlattert needs to portray the deeper issue\nIn Cherry Blattert's Wednesday, Nov. 20 column, "Watch your mouth," she argues that free speech should be protected. To support her argument, Blattert cites two incidents: People of the State of Michigan vs. Barton and a May 7 blackface incident at Syracuse University.\nIn People of the State of Michigan vs. Barton, resident Janice Barton was accused of committing a verbal hate crime in a restaurant against several Hispanic patrons. Blattert argues that, "(Barton) committed no crime whatsoever." But on Nov. 1, the Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged language in a lower court's ruling that Barton had used "fighting words" -- speech that is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, the court agrees that Barton did in fact commit a crime; the original decision, however, was reversed because the court determined that Barton "was charged with, and convicted for, conduct that she could not reasonably have known was criminal." In effect, the lower court's ruling was overturned due to a technicality -- Barton's ignorance of the law.\nThe Syracuse incident involved a fraternity member who applied blackface as part of a costume depicting golfer Tiger Woods. Members of the Syracuse community took offense to his portrayal, and demanded his expulsion from the university. Blattert writes, "Our offense does not permit us to bar certain groups of people from expressing their ideas." She goes on to compare the people involved in the incidents to "those who marched for civil rights in the '50s and '60s" and "abolitionists who opposed slavery." The people involved with these movements fought against a type of moral injustice. Their efforts ultimately led to an expansion of opportunities for positive societal growth. Conversely, the people in Blattert's cases are not pushing revolutionary ideals. Rather, they're only revealing their ignorance.\nIgnorance of the issues surrounding diversity does not foster political improvement. Merriam-Webster defines ignorance as "destitute of knowledge or education; lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified." This is the antithesis of growth and improvement.\nFreedom of speech is a much deeper issue than Blattert portrays. Disregarding the nuances that accompany freedom of speech in today's society serves to stunt our growth, rather than promote it. By endorsing the constitutional protection of ignorance, Blattert is advocating a dead-end initiative that distorts the essence of free speech.\nShawn Chen and Rob Pongsajapan\nIU Alumni