Jordan River Forum

Opposition to war is just as patriotic as support This letter is to all of the people that find it unpatriotic to oppose the war in Iraq. The United States of America was founded on ideology, not land. People came to this country, with obvious exceptions, because here we have always tried to guarantee certain freedoms. After the events of Sept. 11, the Bush administration pushed the Patriot Act through Congress. In effect, that act stripped us of many of those freedoms. Then, the Bush administration sent thousands of young people into Iraq, supposedly to bring those freedoms to the Iraqis. Next, thousands of people raised their voices in opposition to the war in Iraq. Finally, thousands of silly people have decided that it is unpatriotic to protest the war. So, we've got an administration against freedom, a bunch of people against freedom, but we're trying to bring freedom to another country. Our soldiers are dying to bring the freedom to oppose a war to Iraq. We have that freedom. If we can't use it, then America is just the dirt between the Rio Grande and the Canadian border. Andrew Clark
Chicago, Ill., IU Alum Irony of violence in anti-war protests I realize that a lot of the public is angry that our country went to war with Iraq. Those angry about the war are protesting for peace. If the war had not started, peaceful protests would have been a good way to use non-violent actions to get the same end result. I have noticed that some of the protests against the war were not so peaceful. Quite a few people were arrested at these "so-called" peaceful protests. One such protest happened in San Francisco, Calif., where protesters broke windows, heaved heavy debris into the streets and threw rocks at passing trains. More than 1,400 people were arrested. Also, in Arlington, Va., police officers arrested six people and had to use pepper spray on protesters that decided to use violence to protest the war in Iraq. Since police officers are needed to control the threat of possible violence at these protests, that leaves less officers available to manage crime. Why are people protesting for peace, but then using violent actions to get their message across? At this point, the public should band together for our troops. Our soldiers are putting their own lives on the line, and we should respect that, even if we do not agree with the government. Rachel Eaton
Junior Praying to go to Iraq, defend the moral rights of the people As I watch the events of the world unfold, I find myself praying. Though strong in convictions and belief, I am not a role model as a religious person. Two years have come and gone since an unexpected and unwanted discharge was handed down from the U.S. Navy. I pray for safety and freedom from oppression. I pray that those we are fighting for and against understand why we chose to fight. Horrific events are unfolding and the only question on my mind is opposite of what the general public stands for. People protest that the war is immoral and unjust. Yet it is for these reasons we are fighting. The tyranny of terrorism has been unleashed, and it is our duty to stop it. We live in a country that allows us to question everything. Yet when we fight to provide similar God-given rights to citizens halfway around the world, it is considered wrong. The people that protest U.S. involvement in Iraq are the same people who take for granted their everyday freedoms and would be unwilling to give their lives for something greater than themselves. I pray for the return of our troops and the return of peace. Tomorrow I continue my fight to return to active status. I pray that God will grant me the opportunity to join the war. I pray for this because I know the United States is right in its actions. I pray for this because dying for such a cause, if need be, holds the greatest honor any person could receive in a lifetime. I know what my country stands for. I appreciate and respect the freedoms it grants me, and never will I question a government that defends all who are unable to defend themselves, even in the face of opposition from its own people. Kevin G. Burt
Junior Coach Davis should look for un-selfish team elsewhere I agree with the comments in the previous Jordan River Forum and can say with no hesitation: Davis, leave. You're right. You don't know how to motivate this team. They don't listen to you. You don't have what it takes to coach Division I basketball. Maybe you should pursue the NBA or a league where not passing the ball and favoritism are appreciated. You are the captain of the ship. You should take responsibility when your team, one of the most talented in the country, gets beat by Penn State. I might also congratulate "Coach" Davis for publicly embarrassing the University on several occasions this year. Unfortunately, you are not Bobby Knight. Wipe that whiny look off your face and accept the fact that you are in the wrong place. Leave. Morgan Wills
Lanesville, Ind., IU Alum IU football making strides toward positive progress I am very impressed with the current football coaching staff and job they are doing in finding good football players and getting them to come to IU to play football. Of course, only time will tell in regards to wins and losses, but once again, I am very optimistic with the direction of the IU football program. The only thing I would like the University to do is to give free tickets to the Girls and Boy's clubs to fill up the stands for home games and build a possible future fan base. In conclusion, I hope to see more football articles. Sincerely, a Hoosier Fan Forever. Dennis Clarke
Washington, Ind. Comic strip had offensive racial slurs about Germans The "Non Sequitur" strip you ran 4 April, 2003, shocked and appalled me with its reference to "krauts." As a student of law and a firm believer in First Amendment freedoms, I emphasize my belief that cartoonists have the right to make whatever point they wish. (Indeed, this cartoon may well be intended as a jibe at the sort of narrow-minded people it depicts.) However, we must be consistent with our standards of what is acceptable in a university newspaper. I suspect you would never run a strip with jokes (be they social parody or otherwise) with WWII references about "chinks" being left to their fates under the "nips." It so happens that many of my closest personal friends are Germans, and they have already been subjected to enough bigotry from encounters with jingoist hatemongers; the IDS should be above exacerbating the problem by printing cartoons containing ethnic slurs. Shannon Malcolm
Law Student International students contribute much to US I would like to respond to the commentary by Scott Six (Jordan River Forum, March 27) regarding visas issued to international students "being a privilege, not a right." I would like to thank him for his vote of confidence in that the "the majority of international students are not terrorists;" this is very comforting to know. Mr. Six may be reminded that the majority of international students, especially graduate students, come to U.S. universities after receiving scholarships and grants either from their intended institutions or their country of origin. The majority of international undergraduate students come here to spend their own money for their education. Graduate students in particular are always required to relay information pertinent to their studies to their sponsors. It is the relationship among the sponsor, his/her academic advisor and the student, and not that of a student with the Department of Homeland security that should be held responsible for the student's academic progress. Visas are issued primarily for study, but changing majors and changing one's academic orientation are also rights that are not reserved primarily for American students. In the eyes of the university community, erudition and academic excellence should not be censored by the sort of intervention the SEVIS system mandates. The continued dominance of the United States in the sciences, especially computer science, is fueled by these foreign students. International students have been carefully monitored in the past, but they should also have the opportunity to move freely within the country of their studies; that also includes having the right to buy a 'one-way ticket,' if they wish to. Closer scrutiny of any international student, or any immigrant for that matter, would not have prevented the Sept. 11 disaster. The United States is still an "open society," with democratic principles and an eagerness to advance science. The inflexibility of the SEVIS program would have an unwelcome consequence; depriving American universities of the continuous flow of both foreign monies and foreign "brain power." Olga Kalentzidou
Visiting Assistant Professor Letter regarding pay disparities not completely accurate Keith Welch's letter (Jordan River Forum, April 7) represents nothing more than socialist propaganda and ill-conceived rhetoric. His overall point, that support staff at IU feel underappreciated and that the administration is overpaid, is however all too valid. Instead of pointing out the singular case of President Brand and highlighting the typical socialist views of equality of outcome, Mr. Welch should have pointed out recurring incidents that have led to an overall decline in morale. For example, let's look at pay. Welch could have easily brought up the pay disparity between the administration and the faculty (it's hard to examine the difference between administration and support staff due to high turnover.) Take the cases of three administrators: IU vice-president and Chief Administrative Officer Terry Clapacs, IU vice-president and Chief Financial Officer Judy Palmer and Dean of the Business School Dan Dalton (Dean Dalton is also an active professor and holds an endowed position in addition to his administrative duties), versus the cases of three prominent faculty members: President of the Bloomington Faculty Council professor Robert Eno, prominent biology professor Vic Viola and famous English professor Maurice Sperber. Since 1996-1997 the three administrators have seen their pay increased by $69,710, $72,446 and $104,972, respectively against faculty increases of $15,099, $18,650 and $14,000, respectively. In percentage terms the difference in pay increases over the 6 year period is just as striking: 51.5 percent, 54.3 percent and 60.45 percent for the administrators versus 37.24 percent, 18.61 percent, and 29.17 percent for the faculty. The question we must ask is whether or not such a disparity is deserved. Unlike Welch, I would note the necessity to hire and retain highly qualified and brilliant administrators to lead our University. Additionally, it is a legitimate contention that the University is responding to "market forces" in setting compensation, as our problems are shared by most universities. I would agree though, that the current pay disparity stands opposed to the supposed academic mission of our University, and the university system as a whole, whereby it would be assumed that our faculty would receive compensation in line with or exceeding the vast majority of administrators. (All pay information came from: https://fdrs.fms.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/Salary/Salary.pl) Judd Arnold
Senior 'Talking dirty in French' was just that -- dirty While responding to "Talking dirty in French (March 31)" by Mr. George Lyle IV, it would be fairly easy to point out the silliness of the whole piece, the deliberate stereotyping, the historical oversimplifications and the outright factual errors, but we won't take that path. However, we don't want to dismiss the opinion expressed in this article as simply silly and inconsequential. Most objectionable in this piece is the deliberate framing of the "debate" in terms of all Americans vs. all French, as if all Americans and French, as individuals were of only one opinion. This kind of nationalistic stereotyping sadly goes along with the defeat of the life of the mind. Moreover, it is particularly distressing to witness a student journalist engaging in this kind of anti-intellectualist pitting of one group against another, where real differences of opinion are ridiculed and people are singled out in terms of their national origins. Think only a second of the possible consequences if the word "French" were to be replaced in the title and in the body of this opinion piece by words targeting in similar manner a race, an ethnic group, a gender, a sexual orientation or a religion. As teachers and students of history and literature, we know too well from the distant and recent past that certain words and tactics, if not immediately responded to, may in a tense period such as the one we are currently experiencing escalate to more than bruising egos for the targeted party. As Vice Chancellor (Moya) Andrews recently reminded us in her "Statement of Principles," IU has asked its instructors to "show respect for the dignity and rights of all" and rightly maintains that "we must accept the guiding principles of reasoned discourse, intellectual honesty, mutual respect ..." We believe Mr. Lyle's opinion piece does not meet these intellectual and civil standards. Since we sincerely want to foster a climate of civility at IU, we are voicing our concern over these detrimental practices. Furthermore, we need to expect the same civility from our students and future professionals in the field of journalism. It is therefore our hope that all the members of the University community will be able to rise above this sort of anti-intellectual rhetoric. Jacques E. Merceron
Professor of French and 50 co-signers Some Virginians still feel wronged by Abraham Lincoln Honorable men will not forget or forgive the tyrant that was responsible for the death of many of my ancestors and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, both North and South, in a needless war. Our (Confederate) movement will not "gradually fade." In fact, it has grown by approximately 25 percent in the last year. You should have stayed for the parade on Sunday, for you would have seen approximately 2,000 individuals marching through Richmond on the way to the cemetery through a most welcoming crowd. Brock Townsend
Richmond, Va.