Counterproductive denunciations\nAm I the only person who was slightly taken aback by the denunciations of IU over an incident in which several Muslim women were required to remove their head scarves? In the Wednesday, Sept 10, Jordan River Forum, Nurdilah Mustapha and Sarimah Samad were quite vitriolic in their attack on the University.\nFirst of all, I don't see how IU as an institution could be assigned much blame at all. Once it was made aware of the incident, the relevant officials acted promptly and brought the school's policy in line with that of the state. Indiana law allows women to be photographed for state IDs in their head scarves if it is for religious reasons (a debatable issue, but that's beside the point).\nSome people do not seem to be satisfied with this, however. The fact that it happened at all is evidence enough for them to convict the community of multicultural insensitivity. Now, I did not witness these incidents. From what I've read, however, it seems to be a case of an average employee not knowing the school's policy on the matter, and making a judgment call. I'm sure it was not intended to "strip these students of their beliefs," as Ms. Samad contends. I actually grew up in a conservative, Apostolic church in which women wore head coverings for similar theological reasons that Muslims do. My mother never seemed to regard the removal of her head covering for photo IDs as religious discrimination.\nNicole R. Green\nSenior
The white man's burden\nI do not doubt that it was an unpleasant experience. As Ms. Samad points out, these women were at "the center of all those looking and judging." But again, she uses loaded (and quite insulting) language to indict an entire community, when in reality it is simply an innate, albeit unfortunate, habit of humans to poke our noses into others' affairs.\nThe reason I am bothered by these reactions is that Muslims do have reason to complain. The racial stereotyping and hate crimes that have exploded since Sept. 11 and the insidious PATRIOT Act have had a particularly adverse effect on Muslims. To cry out that discrimination has occurred when it might be a simple matter of human error, however, seems a counterproductive and quite pretentious attitude. \nBrandon Wilkening\nGraduate student
I want to ride my bicycle\nI am a freshman staying at McNutt Quad. When I walked out to my bike on my way to class this morning, I found an orange sticker saying that I must pay to register my bike and park it at a bike rack. There were at least 20 other bikes outside, all but a few had the sticker. The sticker also declares that persons who do not register their bike and park it in said racks will have their bikes ticketed and impounded. This is ridiculous. First of all, why should students have to pay to register their bikes? Is the cost of bike rack upkeep really that overwhelming? Second, there are no bike racks (that I know of) near the front of McNutt. Where do they expect us to lock up our bikes? Briscoe and Foster Quads have racks outside, and I'm sure McNutt students would be happy to park in racks if they were provided. As things are, many students here are upset. \nRoss Templeton\nFreshman
Enlightening officer\nIn regards to Aaron Officer's letter in the Jordan River Forum in the IDS, Sept. 16, there are so many inaccuracies with Mr. Officer's letter that the only way I know how to respond is with a list:\n1. No one is trying to hinder professor Rasmusen's right to free speech. The town meeting last Wednesday was a response to his words. No one mentioned taking action to have his Web site removed. Had you attended the meeting, perhaps you would have known this, but now you do.\n2. I looked up the word "minority" in the dictionary and there was no reference to "an outer trait that cannot be changed." What I did find was a definition that follows: "a group, party or faction with a\nsmaller number of votes or adherents than the majority." This defines GLBT-identified individuals as a minority.\n3. One cannot, I repeat, cannot change one's sexual orientation. Research has proven this as well as proven that attempting to change one's sexual orientation does more damage than harm. And if you really want to persuade people, I would recommend not using Anne Heche as a reference point. She did title her autobiography "Call Me Crazy," after all.\n4. How does publicly claiming that one is gay "announce how (one) like(s) it in bed?" It is you, Mr. Officer, who is bringing up the issue of sex acts, therefore, "throwing it in our faces." When you become so obsessed with what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms, then you open the door for others to invade yours.\n5. I'm not really sure about the polygamy remark nor the connection to same-sex sex. If you have a problem with polygamy, then don't do it. \n6. I'm glad that there are now openly gay ministers. Besides, there have always been gay ministers, and now they have no reason to hide in the closet.\n7. I find it amusing that you feel that by being labeled homophobic, which your letter definitely is, you are trying to be silenced. No one is trying to silence you, perhaps rid you of the ignorance that permeates your mind, but not silence you.\n8. The most telling statement of your letter was in reference to "people who are fighting homosexual urges." The old saying goes: we dislike in others what we dislike in ourselves. I suggest that you talk to someone at the GLBT Student Support Services Office at 705 E. Seventh St. It appears you have a lot of issues to work through. Perhaps the office and your college education can enlighten you. By the way, National Coming Out Day is next month, Oct. 11. We happy homosexuals of IU and Bloomington welcome you. \nJohn Bogeman\nStaff
A glittery sound-off\nUh, we don't want to scare Aaron Officer (a name so good it should be in a drag show somewhere) with more brainstorming. Let's simply guide him to the closest dictionary, where under the word "minority," he should find plenty to make his tiny little head explode. \nPerhaps a field trip would be in order: he, Rasmusen and their pal Jesus of the Brickbats can crouch under a bush and espy self-declared homos, nudging each other at their flaming obviousness with glee.\nSeriously, sweetness, I could have sympathy for your crude lack of insight, but Anne Heche? Honey, she thought her name was Celestina, and she whored sexuality for a movie career ... she got knocked up and is normal now. Surely that wins applause from such as you, not sand in the face for her tragic prostitution. \nYet I see that I've not been a good homo, or one such as Aaron Officer sees swallowing the morality of the United States before his glittering beady eyes. I've yet to announce to him how I like it in bed. Well, Aaron, you definitely have to kiss me before I'll tell you that, and then you've got to tongue me to get to second base, you feel that?\nAnd, as far as representing God, lover, I do that when I breathe. Nothing elementary about that argument, just the fact that it's argued to a very elementary brain. \nMark A. Price\nAlumnus
The best choice is obvious\nWebster's Dictionary defines "minority" as an ethnic, racial or other group having a distinctive presence within a society. It also gives as a definition, a group having little power or representation relative to other groups in a society. So from both a sociological and a political standpoint, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons are most definitely a minority, contrary to what Aaron Officer claims in his Sept. 16 letter to the IDS. \nDepending on which statistics you believe, GLBT persons comprise between 10 and 25 percent of the population. They also have historically had virtually no representation or political power. However, despite recent political and social advances both in the United States, Canada and various European countries, GLBT persons still remain a minority within a primarily heterosexual society. And sadly, we seem to be the one minority that it's acceptable to discriminate against, to make hate speech about and to commit hate crimes against. Officer asks where the United States government should draw the line at permitting various types of private behavior. I ask, why should the government draw a line at all? Why should the government decide which behaviors should be legal and which ones should not? Officer does not realize that when you boil it all down and get rid of all the layers of politics, every act of government is really an act of force. Every law on the books is little more than a demand on you to do something you don't want to do. And these demands are backed up by guns.\nSo I ask you, Mr. Officer, do you really want to use force to compel others to subscribe whatever brand of morality you deem fit? You should keep in mind that when you give the government this sort of weapon, eventually, it could wind up being pointed at you. Furthermore, neither I nor the GLBT are trying to silence you with our workshop. We are attempting to create our own message, an educational one. That way, we can give the general public two competing messages and, in the spirit of John Stuart Mill, allow the people to choose what they want to believe for themselves. And when the choice is between a message of hate and homophobia, and a message of tolerance and trust, the best choice is clearly obvious.\nMatt Briddell\nSenior
A little education\nOn Sept. 16, Aaron Officer wrote a letter to the Jordan River Forum expressing the fact that he feels the GLBT community is infringing on the rights of others by "(hindering) anyone who expresses an opposite view" to their own.\nI want to say first that I totally agree with his statement, "now that we are benefiting from higher education, we can use tactics benefiting our status" when arguing these issues. I decided upon reading these words of wisdom to take advantage of my own higher education. I looked up the First Amendment on the U.S. National Archive and Records Administration Web site. There I found that the First Amendment reads as such, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." \nI would like to point out that this amendment does not state that freedom of speech belongs solely to the majority or the minority in this country. I therefore find it interesting that Mr. Officer felt the need to express his belief that the GLBT community is not an actual minority, as if that would somehow alter their right to protect their own First Amendment rights. I therefore fail to understand the point being made in the bulk of his argument.\nThe IU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct states in Part 1: Student Rights and Responsibilities that, "students at Indiana University are expected to enter into a social contract to respect the rights and dignity of other students. Under this policy, the University will not exclude any person from participation in its programs or activities on the basis of arbitrary considerations of such characteristics as age, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status." It seems to me that just about everyone at IU will fall into one of these categories and therefore we should all have the right to freedom from discrimination. \nAs I read the opinion piece by Paul Bryant ("Why is reverse racism so overlooked at IU?" IDS, Sept. 16) I could not help wonder whether it was some type of personal ad by the way he described himself with "Ghetto clothes" and a "flashy MTV style" bling necklace. But as I read more it was just another awful piece on how some white males feel they are under attack by minorities in this country. \nLet's first examine the title of the piece, "Why is reverse racism so overlooked at IU?" The term reverse racism has been used as a tool by some white males to describe how they have been victims of racism. It expresses a situation where the dominant group is being discriminated against by a lower, less powerful subordinate group. How can a group with less power be racist towards the group with power? Now does that really make sense? No!\nAnother point which Mr. Bryant brings up is this notion of colorblindness. " ... My friends were minorities and I never looked at them as different but as equals/friends." Now, to say you don't look at someone as different is not only absurd but just plain dumb. He even back-talks later in the article by saying, "…we are a diverse group of heritages and cultures -- each with different experiences/likes/tastes/abilities." By saying this statement he says people are different which is directly contrary to his previous statement. \nNow, let's talk about your "minority" friend who likes Gap clothing and Eddie Bauer, etc. Honestly maybe he is trying to be "white," there are plenty of self-hating minorities in the world that include Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, (R) J.C. Watts and plenty others.\nIt seems quite apparent Mr. Bryant and others who support his views need a history lesson on how minorities have been and still are subjugated to racial attitudes of this country. Or maybe, has he given the thought that people might not like him because the clothes he wears but instead his personality? Mr. Bryant's piece is at best a simplistic sophomoric look at race relations in the U.S. and, at worst, a quasi-racist statement. I suggest Mr. Bryant think about this James Baldwin quote before he goes around complaining about his hard life as a white male: "No people come into possession of a culture without having paid a heavy price for it." \nRahsaan D. Bartet\nJunior
Just 'the facts'?\nI agree with the majority of those on campus who believe that professor Rasmusen's comments, while absolutely deplorable, hateful and morally reprehensible, have a right to be heard. \nIndeed, I believed so strongly in his right to have his opinions heard, that I went to his Web page (http://mypage.iu.edu/~erasmuse/weblog.htm) and read his words free from possible interpretation or mistaken quoting by journalists. I must say I was stunned by what was there.\nThe first lines I read were, "I'm tired of people saying, for rhetorical effect, that professor Rasmusen has no evidence to support his claim that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. You'll find detailed discussion in earlier posts on why I made the claim."\nHere was a man who took the statistics to heart 100 percent and was willing to act on them without prejudice to a single person who might prove him to be incorrect. A terrifying prospect to say the least. If we are to take a page from professor Rasmusen's book then it stands to reason that, since we know that it is a scientifically proven fact that the majority of serial killers are white males between the ages of 25 and 40, are from lower to middle class backgrounds, and have at least an average intelligence, then everyone who fits that description must be a serial killer. Exactly how old is professor Rasmusen? And should we really be allowing potential serial killers to be teaching our children, pastoring our churches or leading our communities?\nI would say, before we make too many assumptions based on the "facts" we should probably get to know the people. It is more than likely they are not exactly what the numbers might suggest they are. \nTeri Herron\nGraduate student
No big names speaking up\nIt's happened yet again. Another person has made a big issue about freedom of speech in relation to Eric Rasmusen's Web log ("Saving diversity one day at a time," Friday). But contrary to professor Cate's assertion that "A number of students, staff and faculty have suggested in these pages and elsewhere that the University should remove professor Eric Rasmusen's remarks about homosexuals from his personal Web page," I haven't heard an overwhelming call to trample Rasmusen's free speech rights. Of course he can say whatever he wants to.\nIt's time to move the dialogue to the real issue: campus climate. Why did Rasmusen feel his comments were appropriate and responsible? Why have students withdrawn from IU when confronted with homophobia? Why are many GLBT students afraid to come out? Why must students (and staff) experience real pain and anger as a result of another's hurtful words? And most importantly, why has there been so much silence around this issue on the part of faculty and campus leaders?\nExample: Chancellor Brehm finally condemned Rasmusen's words publicly at the first Bloomington Faculty Council meeting (thank you, Chancellor), but when the floor was opened for comments, there was silence. \nExample: Although he is a strong ally of the GLBT community and was very disturbed by Rasmusen's actions, Dean Dalton's public statement about the issue was simply, "As many of you know, the Kelley School of Business and Indiana University have been involved in broad media coverage with regard to the appropriate use of 'Personal Home Pages.' We have been advised by University counsel that the following is the current policy regarding these sites ... "\nExample: President Herbert has not addressed the issue.\nWhen it comes to climate and issues of diversity and equity, only the majority or those with power can affect meaningful change. On this campus, those people are the faculty and the upper-level administrators. I recall a former business school dean and IU president who aggressively challenged bigotry in our community. He integrated the pools by taking a black student to swim with him. He integrated local restaurants by threatening to discourage student patronage. And, far from a suppressor of speech, he was renown nationwide as a champion of academic freedom. Of course, that person was Herman B Wells.\nTimes have changed, and so have the issues, but we are desperately seeking that old-fashioned voice of leadership that can help make IU a more welcoming and inclusive place for all students. \nJim Johnson\nStaff
Points of clarification\nWe would like to thank the IDS and reporter Chris Hopper for covering Ballantine Hall Safety Week. We are writing to clarify two points made in the article. First, the Ballantine Hall Safety Committee is composed primarily of staff members, though we encourage all faculty who work and teach in Ballantine Hall to participate in ensuring the safety of all in the building. Secondly, Kathryn Propst is an active member of the committee, but is not its founder or head. The committee was founded when Ballantine Hall developed an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) in conjunction with the Office of Risk Management. Professor Emanuel Mickel was the chairman of that group. The committee has continued to meet and communicate since the EAP was submitted. Professor Bob Althauser has been instrumental in those efforts.\nKathryn Propst and Madeleine Gonin\nBallantine Hall Safety Committee
Props to Bonnie\nI'm just writing in to praise Bonnie Real. I don't know if people sent in positive feedback (or negative), but Bonnie, you're the (wo)man. The first piece I read from you was "Not so freshmen." Brilliant. Bonnie, you definitely keep it Real.\nGreg Bales\nFreshman\n \nImmoral citations\nLet's face it -- IU, like many public institutions of learning in Indiana, is suffering from financial crisis, and each service the University provides suffers in turn.\nSave one.\nThe Associated Press and CNN.com recently published an article detailing the over-sale of parking permits to students and staff (http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/18/sprj.sch.campus.parking.ap/index.html). Simply put, universities all over the country tend to issue more permits than available spaces on campus. The result? Gross numbers of illegal parking citations.\nProblem? Only for those who aren't willing to wake at absurdly early hours and beat the rush ... and surely not for the universities who end up raking in the cash.\nThe IDS detailed on Sept. 8 how almost half of IU parking operations' revenues come from illegal citations (http://www.idsnews.com/newIDS/story.php?id=18009). This amounts to nearly $2.5 million dollars.\nThe University should make a strong effort find a solution to this outrage, lest it end up with problems (such as the current stink of local businesses making profit by creating course packets from copyrighted material: http://www.idsnews.com/newIDS/story.php?id=17357) resulting from vengeful parties who take exception to the propagation and maintenance of illegal activity all in the name of money.\nNo ethical university should indirectly manipulate its citizens into breaking the law, whatever the reason. Such actions violate every person involved with the University by way of integrity compromise.\nTony Iannarelli\nGraduate student
