RPS money machine\nI think the idea to bring advertising to the residence halls is a great idea. After reading the article in the IDS on Nov. 14 titled "TV ads Invade Residence Halls," I wasn't quite sure it's a good idea for IU. First, where is $30,000 going to come from and where will it go? The article didn't really specify where, but it will go to programs and such. What programs? Second, I have some questions that come from this article. What is President's Council and what is the Residence Halls Association? What gives this group the power to determine whether we get to see advertising in the dorms or not? If you ask me, RPS will do whatever, regardless of who decides what. How can we guarantee they are a legitimate entity of IU when food prices are outrageous and every year housing rates go up? I spend more on housing than I do anything else and it's ridiculous. If you ask me, RPS needs to bring in more advertising for more money to lower our costs as residents. They mandate freshmen to live in the dorms and then charge them with every fee in the book. If you ask me, RPS needs all the money they can get and every year will continue to raise the fees. Now that they have a guaranteed number of freshmen who don't have a choice, they will be able to do this. If you ask me, they have a nice monopoly. IU should bring in another group and create a nice competition to drive the prices down. Oh, and one more thing, what exactly is carte blanche and when are these supposed "President's Council" meetings anyway? I would love to visit one to voice my opinion because it doesn't seem anyone else will listen.\nJohn Hudson\nSenior
Class warfare\nYou write of Howard Dean and that it is his political strategy to "launch a class war" in order to generate popular approval ("The Dean of Hazzard," IDS, Nov. 13). Republicans often use the catchphrase "class warfare" to characterize any criticism of absurdly elitist policies that conservatives so fondly espouse. In reality "class warfare" is a perfectly accurate description of what is happening in this country, only it's being led by the president of the United States and his kleptocratic administration, not Howard Dean.\nJohn Hudson\nSenior
Balance coverage\nTo my surprise or more accurately to my dismay, I opened the IDS to yet another blatantly offensive statement. The objection is in reference to the political cartoon in Thursday's IDS which was attempting to create greater awareness about the lack of equity in financing for higher education. The cartoon depicted a large breasted woman with "Well-Endowed Colleges" written across her chest being showered with gifts of "Scholarship" chocolate boxes and grant bouquets from Uncle Sam. In the corner is a small breasted female with "All the Rest" written across her sweatshirt. However pertinent the issue of resource allocation may be for colleges, it is questionable whether the objectification of women proves an effective method of dispersing the message. A political cartoon depicting males with relatively large or small penises to convey the same message has little or no likelihood of being published, the reason being a matter of poor taste; however, the exploitation of women's bodies in the name of sensationalist statements seems to be perfectly acceptable. Perhaps, editors at the IDS should exercise removing their sexist lenses before approving the printing of blatantly offensive portrayals of women.\nJuhi Varma\nSenior
Voodoo TV drama\nThis letter is in response to "Trickle down TV drama" (Elisha Sauers) in the Nov. 11 issue of the IDS. Though some view the cancellation of the Reagan drama as censorship, I believe that had the drama aired, it would have been in poor taste. The media today will go to any length to impose its liberal ideas onto the viewing public, even at the expense of sullying the name of a dying president. I agree with Sauers in that the public has a right to be educated and construct their own ideas about what the legacy of Reagan should be, but I completely disagree with the thought that this drama would not affect the reputation of President Reagan. I think those who say people can watch the drama as pure entertainment but not as a sort of historical depiction are giving the public too much credit for their ability to decide if this piece is pure fabrication. It seems interesting that this work of liberal bias is seen as a fair portrayal in some peoples' eyes; the two lead actors, James Brolin and Judy Davis, are outwardly liberal, and this was to air on the same station where Dan Rather practically cried when Al Gore lost the presidential election in 2000. I am glad CBS dropped what could have been a pathetic display of partisan garbage. Lastly, I found the sarcastic comment, by Sauers, concerning Reagan's Alzheimer condition to be in incredibly poor taste.\nAshley Sears\nSophomore
Making a statement\nDuring the recent annual IU School of Education faculty retreat, we as a group of faculty and staff, requested that the Committee on Diversity within our school forward a strong statement to our Policy Council strengthening the school's position regarding the sexual orientation of teachers. In light of recent debate within the IU community, we wish to make clear our position. We believe that sexual orientation has nothing to do with good teaching. We reaffirm the value of all good teachers, whether heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. The Diversity Committee of the School of Education passed the following resolution:\n"Education and quality teaching are not dependent on ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexual orientation or social class. One of the important goals of achieving diversity in our institution and in our society is to include, support, and advocate for all groups that have historically been discriminated against, excluded or marginalized in our schools and in our society."\nMary McMullen, Fritz Lieber, Mike Tracy, Genevieve Williamson, Lynn Greenfield, Alfreda Clegg, Laura Stachowski, Nita Levison, Sharon Pugh\nFaculty, School of Education
Anti-choice advertising insert is unbalanced\nI am completely disgusted with the insert in the Nov. 12 issue of the IDS, and I am quite certain that I am not alone. An anti-choice insert? Come on, even you have more taste than that. If such an insert is going to be put in your paper, a pro-choice insert should also have been included. Whatever happened to the idea of a non-biased media? We all know it's a myth, but an attempt at presenting balanced information would be nice. There are plenty of groups (Campus for Choice and the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance to name a few) that would have been happy to provide you with information on the other side. I realize that this is technically an ad. But if this ad was in reference to other issues (the death penalty, etc.), would it have even run? There at least needs to be some sort of warning on the front of the insert that the contents may be profoundly upsetting to some, giving us the chance to avoid it if we so choose.\nI can only hope that in the future you'll exercise more discretion if you wish to keep your readers.\nLeyna Wallace-Butin\nSenior
I 'heart' AI\nI'm writing in response to the letter "I love my AI" in the Nov. 11 issue of the IDS (James Teague). I agree wholeheartedly with James: it is time for those that appreciate their AIs to speak up. I, for one, think being a professor does not automatically make you a better instructor than an AI, and the reverse is true as well. AIs and professors have one goal: to teach. Methods may differ, approaches are vastly diverse, but the goal is one in the same. For the fall 2003 semester I was fortunate enough to enjoy all my teachers: 4 AIs and 2 professors. Maybe it's just me, but I feel that it's easier to approach my AIs, who constantly encouraged me to do so. My professors did the same, but I found my AIs to be slightly less intimidating. Plus, I feel that they "get it" more: they've got tons of work to do and they understand that asking for an extension on an assignment isn't a sign of laziness; it's a legitimate course of action when midterms pile up so high and tests all somehow cram together on the same day. Perhaps I was just lucky enough to have great experiences with AIs, but I feel they should receive just as much praise as professors do. After all, if the AIs don't get the teaching experience as grad students, how are they expected to fare as professors? That being said, I want to thank my AIs for everything they've done for me. It's because of them that going to class is just a little more bearable. \nEmily Hodkinson\nSophomore
Why censor?\nIf you hold a position that is right, why would you attempt to have a speech in opposition to that position censored?\nTwo recent cases at IU raise this question. On Nov. 5, the Committee for Freedom held an "affirmative action bake sale" in which they sold cookies for differing prices based on race. The students did this to illustrate their objection to racial preferences in university admissions. While the concept was simple, it helped start a thoughtful discussion on the merits of affirmative action, which is healthy. One IU student filed a complaint with the University, seeking to have the bake sale stopped before it started. Thankfully, the University did not agree.\nIn September, a controversy arose over statements about homosexuality on an IU professor's personal home page. Opponents of free speech argued the page should be removed from University servers, despite the fact that all manner of controversial political and social views have been presented on IU servers. One such critic was City Council candidate Mark Brostoff, who lost my vote when he publicly endorsed censorship.\nIf Rasmusen's words were so wrong, why attempt to censor him? Do some of his critics not trust that on the battlefield of ideas, the best argument will win? Some extremists suggested professor Rasmusen should face professional consequences for expressing his opinions.\nThe university environment should be one where the free exchange of ideas is allowed to flourish. IU, a tax-supported entity, must never yield to demands for censorship.\nScott Tibbs\nAlumnus
Agreeing to disagree\nThe article entitled "Trickle Down TV Drama" (Nov. 11) is in favor of defaming one of the greatest leaders in U.S. history. No man is perfect, but Reagan was a great leader and does not deserve to be defamed and ridiculed on national TV, especially when he is battling Alzheimer's Disease. His wife is a courageous woman who has stood by the president throughout his illness. She should not have to be subject to a TV miniseries that portrays her family in an unfavorable light. I respectfully disagree with Elisha Sauers but value her opinion.\nMatt Lettelleir\nFreshman
Remembering the fallen\nI am writing this letter as a response to a letter from Wes Kocher titled, "Those Darn Terrorists" (Jordan River Forum, IDS, Nov 12). A man whom I looked up to greatly died in the helicopter downing he speaks about so glibly, Command Sgt. Major Cornell Gilmore. He was the head of the enlisted side of the Army JAG Corps, an institution I belong to that ensures decency and legality in warfare, reigning in its worst excesses and punishing those who partake in them. Wes, who I'm going to make a wild bet has no connection with the military, believes that killing that man was someone on the ground with a rocket launcher's form of self defense. Self defense is not working to deprive your fellow citizens of humanitarian help, or propping up a regime that starves and brutalizes them. While, even as a soldier, I cannot support the pretenses of this war or the manner in which it was started, I can also not support the complete disregard for life that is shown in his letter. If the American Revolution has anything at all to do with this specific incident or this current war, I have no clue what it is. The soldiers in Iraq are doing what they are required to do by oath and laws, and they are not doing it with ill will or malice -- they deserve a lot more respect than is shown by this obviously angry, and seemingly illogical, young man.\nCameron Moser\nJunior
Fairness revisited\nTo Taylor Marrow, who wrote into the Jordan River Forum (IDS, Nov. 12) and all the other writers who participated in the slew of editorials criticizing the Committee for Freedom -- I have to ask, does your hypocrisy know no bounds?\nHow can Marrow stereotype the committee by saying they "have probably never seen an urban ghetto" when, for all he knows, they could have grown up in the middle of Compton? He then goes on to comment that numerous times he has been called a n-----. Well Marrow, do you think that I've never been called a honky, a cracker or, as some writers in the IDS phrased it, a "naive white boy." Marrow also says that if Stephen Jerabek really wanted equality he should "buy textbooks for minority students who can't afford them." Why just minority students that can't afford them? Why not any student that can't afford them? This illustrates the problem with people that agree with affirmative action. They assume there are no disadvantaged whites and that only white people are racist.\nHow soon we all forget our history lessons. Haven't we learned that any law or policy that recognizes race is inherently wrong? Didn't the "separate but equal" philosophy of segregation teach us anything?\nThe question was asked by Jack Silverstein ("To Affirmative Actioners," Nov. 14), "All you Anti-Affirmative Actioners, what is your solution?" Why not throw out race? Why, instead of assuming blacks are poor with sub-par education and giving them special scholarships, don't we give scholarships to the poor and disadvantaged? If blacks were poorer and more disadvantaged, then wouldn't the scholarships go to the same place anyway? At least this way, distinction between the races would not be bred. Marrow stated "affirmative action is one way to increase diversity and possibly equality in the long run." This is true; it is one way, but that doesn't make it the right way.\nBlake Guingrich\nFreshman
