Jordan River Forum

On Feb. 5, 2003, the Indiana Daily Student once again insulted the IU community with stereotypical representations of minority students. This "political cartoon" on affirmative action was a satirical piece gone wrong. Unfortunately, it perpetuated the stereotype that affirmative action gives admission to underqualified persons (namely minorities) into higher education and the workforce. \nThe IDS has a long history of misrepresenting the student body in regard to diversity and equality. This misrepresentation is an obvious display of bias and lack of understanding on the part of the IDS staff to the sensitive issues of race relations on this campus and in the world.\nIDS continues to print misleading articles, especially regarding the minority population. These offensive materials include David Horowitz's claims against reparations, the article arguing that blacks are the greatest beneficiaries of welfare, the slanted coverage of the Benton Mural protest, the Team Major Taylor Little 500 incident, and a host of other misleading articles that fail to give a more objective and diverse voice in covering the "news." \nAnd here lies the problem. How does an organization run by students, organized by students, and printed for students continue to anger, disturb and offend their viewing audience ... the students? We, the student body and faculty, must question the activities of the Indiana Daily Student. We are not the source of cynical entertainment. The paper will not continue to cause more outrage and disgust rather than discourse and learning. Therefore, we urge the student body to hold the Indiana Daily Student staff and management accountable for what they print. It is time to stand up against any forms of power, media, government and other institutions that strip away the richness of our diverse communities. \nThe IDS continues to offend the very people they wish to reach so let us, the trailblazers of the future, remind the IDS of its pledge to print inclusive news that represents all perspectives. \nThe Indiana University Black Student Union will be hosting a town hall meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2003, in Teter dormitory Formal Lounge to discuss the past and present offenses of our student newspaper and new courses of action. We challenge the student body and the IDS staff to attend this meeting so that we can formulate a better paper that reaches, respects and represents the richness of Indiana University.\nCarolyn Randolph for the Black Student Union\nJunior\nStop hating actions and start offering solutions\nIn the opinion section of the Feb. 18 issue of the IDS, there was an opinion written by the Bloomington Commission on the Status of Black Males. They have a lot of nerve to comment on a cartoon about affirmative action. JP Benitez's decision to put that particular cartoon in was a good one, and the Bloomington Commission on the Status of Black Males proves that. They make it obvious that affirmative action has done enough. They can get away with being both racist and sexist, something white men cannot do. I happen to know and love some black people, but if I told them I was in the Bloomington Commission on the Status of white males, they'd hate me like I was in the KKK. So please, don't complain about affirmative action cartoons. Instead, why don't you change your name to the Bloomington Commission on the Status of an Equal Society and help eliminate the need for those cartoons to be created in the first place?\nJeff Byerly\nFreshman\nNew keg law makes drinking more dangerous\nA new law will require every keg to have tags for identification. Lawmakers hope this will reduce alcohol consumption, since the buyer can be held responsible for minors drinking from the keg. \nLet's be realistic -- the people who were going to throw alcoholic parties still will, but they'll find other sources of alcohol. In my experience, beer has been the safest form of alcohol; its low concentration means it takes longer to consume and so reduces the risk of overdrinking. Lawmakers will not be stopping under age drinking; they'll just be making it more dangerous. In the future, we'll see more hard alcohol at parties, in the form of highly concentrated shots, or in mixed drinks with unknown concentrations. Think fraternity jungle juice -- some mixes are dilute, others have one part Everclear for every part juice. When you have an underage, inexperienced student drinking these variable beverages, it will lead to more overdrinking and sometimes dangerous consequences. On top of that, the risk of date rape drugs being used will increase, since a second party will be making those drinks. \nThis kind of lawmaking reminds me of the IUPD arresting people for intoxication last fall, when it got to the point where many students would rather drive than walk home. This is another attempt to solve the alcohol "problem" that only makes the situation more dangerous.\nNicholas Klemen\nSophomore\nMcGruder's comedy not funny; full of hate and rhetoric\nWhy is it when a tasteless cartoon is published in your newspaper the outrage is immeasurable; Many are willing to voice their concerns and even call for the resignation of an opinion writer! But when a speaker such as Mr. Aaron McGruder comes to campus and spews illogic such as, "The Republicans play the political game the way it's supposed to be played dirty, underhanded and messy, and violent ... How bad are they? They killed Minnesota Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone," he insisted. \nWhy is this celebrated as a comical man and "art?" It's funny, the double standard that is, about how a cartoon on an opinion page can enrage people so. Yet the clear implication that a political party killed a person based on no facts will not. Where is the outrage now? Hypocrisy ... ? I'll let your readers be the judge.\nAdam Neft\nJunior\nAsian students are the forgotten \nminorities\nDear President Bepko:\nIn response to your e-mail in support of affirmative action -- Why are Asians not considered a minority at this school? \nAs a freshman, I received information about the Minority Achievers Program. Visualize the look of disbelief on my face when I found out that I didn't quality for the program because I was Asian.\nYou'll have to visualize hard, because Asians don't look like the majority of Americans (read: Caucasians), and so we are a minority. To quote the information page on MAP, "you must be African American, Hispanic American or Native American ... ?\nIsn't it ironic that the Minority Achievers Program excludes Asians? Why not just call it, the Society of No Asians?\nOpportunities for minorities should include opportunities for Asians.\nIndeed, there are many Asians who are great scientists and make more money than their minority counterparts through their accomplishments in research, regardless of communication skill (or lack thereof). In this regard, many argue the Asian populace is not disadvantaged.\nFirst, let me assure you that this is not a genetically inherited superpower that has been given to all Asians. It is the result of a strong work ethic and the fact that Asians are encouraged to study science because brilliant research is equally lauded by the scientific community. \nSecond, just because many Asians are great scientists does not mean that as a whole, we hold an advantage. Many Asians were not blessed with such skill, one reason you can still find Chinese restaurants and karate studios in most corners of America. \nThird, let's be honest, Asians don't look any more like Caucasians than Hispanics, Native Americans, or African-Americans. Therefore, we are subject to the same over-generalized stereotypes every other minority group is.\nBecause many Americans are not always able to see past skin color, affirmative action still exists. Why shouldn't Asians be able to take advantage of the same benefits afforded other minority groups? \nAs a wise man once said, if you talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk. And if you believe the hype, that man must have been Asian.\nPhillip Chang\nSenior\nLocal student Israeli/Palestinian arguments need more facts\nIt's important to get the facts straight because a lot of misinformation goes around parading as facts. For example the claim about "the generous offer." Just a year ago, I was at a meeting of the Hudson Institute where David Horowitz, journalist, spoke on Camp David II. Horowitz recounted that he had asked someone involved in the discussions about the "offer." The "offer" ... had been everything the Palestinians had actually asked for except the return of refugees to Israel proper. So, "facts" are not always what they seem. The piece points out a lot of "facts" that are clearly informed by a particular bias, and it is that bias which allows only one side legitimacy when both deserve it (the door swings both ways). There is no requirement for proof on Web sites! Also, for a long time the Palestinian Liberation Organization charter expressly advocated the destruction of the state of Israel; so, it's not so hard to fathom that Israelis might have a tough time believing the tiger is now a pussy cat.\nSecondly, what value is there to assigning blame? There is plenty of innocent blood on everyone's hands, and it has been there for a long time, not just since 1992. The preoccupation with the past has each group locked in a blame game. It is more important to look at the future. What sort of future do you want? One where two, hostile states of Israel and Palestine live side by side? If so, the intifada is misplaced, only destroying what it hopes to gain. Peace in this case isn't about an arbitrary piece of land. Each people have a deep, almost organic connection to the specific place. It is an issue of identity which is something very difficult to negotiate away. Terms like "Palestinian land" only betray a refusal to acknowledge legitimate claims. Until everyone is willing to acknowledge each other's legitimate right to be there, no one will be at peace.\nLastly, peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of good will and good faith. These qualities are gifts from one person to another, from one people to another. Both groups have done a lot to destroy trust; so, what can they do to climb out of the vortex? Peace depends entirely on both peoples, not only one. A marriage takes two spouses. Unless both peoples understand that war will not achieve their goals, peace will be a phantom. When both people decide that the table of peace has two chairs, then peace has a chance.\nScott Jackson\nGraduate Student\n'Lysistrata' was an exercise in the exploitation of female students\nOn Feb.13, I attended with my girlfriend an IU production of Aristophanes' "Lysistrata." Having studied this classic play I was familiar with its bawdy contents and was aware that there was going to be some "artistic nudity." However, much of the nudity I saw was unnecessary, with a half-dozen of the undergraduate actresses performing topless. An explicit strip tease was incorporated into the second half of the play along with dramatic representations of sex acts. \nIt is not the nudity itself to which I object since this is an aesthetic tool used by many artists in the field of acting. What I do object to is the use of this tool in the educational and distinct artistic setting of the IU Department of Theatre and Drama. I feel that the Department has intentionally exploited the students who have voluntarily participated in this production. It is easy for the Department to manipulate these young actresses who are eager to "make it big" to perform nude. Even though these girls are performing nude at their own free will, the University should not compel them to do something that may prove to be an embarrassment to them later in their private or professional lives. The University, holding to its professed proud tradition of academic excellence and public service, should strive to provide a platform that will provide these young actresses with the best patronage possible as they start their careers. This display of public nudity has been approved by the same university that supposedly frowned on the recent filming of pornography on its campus. This time the University has called it art and charged admission. Overall, I felt that this particular production was harmful and detrimental to its stated objectives of peace in a time of conflict. \nMany people who attended this production were unable to get past the nudity to focus on the more subtle contexts of the play. This is unfair to both the performers and the audience. 'Lysistrata' is only the latest example of hypocritical conduct by the scandalous University that is soon to be my Alma Mater. \nMarshall Howell\nSenior\nBrand should not get a longer leave than any other staffer\nThis letter is in response to your Feb. 20 article regarding Myles Brand's six-year "leave of absence." Myles Brand might have performed well during his tenure here at IU, but when looking at an employee's overall severance "package," there are other things to consider. Coach Bob Knight was not afforded the same appreciation; when Coach Knight was dismissed, only his performance in recent years was considered. The NCAA championships, the revenue, respect and recognition he earned the University and his positive influence on numerous student athletes were soon forgotten when he misbehaved.\nIt is common etiquette in academia to give at least a full semester's notice when preparing to vacate any position. This policy should be applied particularly thoroughly when vacating a position of such importance as the University president. Myles Brand gave only a few months' notice to the University, which is a slap in the face of the institution which had given him a chance and propelled him into stardom within academic circles. When examining President Brand's performance here in Bloomington, one cannot help but feel the tarnish of this devious act upon his years of otherwise mediocre service.\nA six-year option for leave of absence is evidence of the trustees' reckless disregard for the current budget and funding difficulties the University is facing. With a pile of tuition increases and program cuts already facing our students and faculty, this decision could only be deemed preposterous. The 2-year norm for higher education -- which is not extended to all employees who leave on good terms -- would be a most gracious gift for President Brand, who left IU "high and dry" with his decision to join the NCAA.\nI would hope that the trustees could reverse this decision, or perhaps reduce the benefits in the "fine print" of this deal.\nW. John Rooda\nGraduate Student\nAnti-war protesters have had free \nand open space\nWriting to enlighten a liberal university newspaper is pretty much a waste of time but it's incredible how students can get sucked into such imbecilic thought ... believe me, I was there at one point back in the day. I thought I knew it all at 19 ... then I got out into the real world. \nAnyhow, Evan Ross' column "With us or against us" was amusing/disturbing/sad as he purports that anyone not agreeing with potential war with Iraq gets branded as "anti-American ... communist ... etc." Here was an interesting quote ... "If you don't agree with the government, then the government tries to silence you." Are you really serious? Evan, did you not see the millions of demonstrators Saturday? I don't think their speakers (most spewing virulent anti-American rhetoric, not constructive arguments or possible alternatives) were muzzled in any way by the police, local or federal government. As far as muzzling goes, that tactic is a favorite of the organizers of the event, actual Communists, whose icons put an end to anything resembling free speech with executions and gulags. See, freedom to assemble in a totalitarian system is courageous but in America, it's pretty ordinary. And as far as "... name calling and blustering" by Donald Rumsfeld in regard to France, uh, did you hear or see anything the Saturday demonstrations offered? That's all it was! It was one speaker after the other bashing Bush, Blair, Powell, etc. Just once I would've liked to hear someone denounce Hussein for his role in this whole thing. \nAs far as Jeremy Glick goes, I actually saw this thing and O'Reilly was more put off by Glick's behavior than by his political stance. If you're going to act like a child, you should be treated like one. \nI know you're probably a smart boy, Evan. When discussing the issues, just remember to give the other side the same courtesy you are demanding of them.