Jordan River Forum

Trivializing foreign languages fails to teach anything Emily Cooper, a "senior majoring in journalism," is letting her fellow students down. Assigned to fill a column ("Perils of a foreign language," May 24), and in the mood to write something on curriculum, she chooses to join the hordes and belittle one part of it as a waste of her time. She perpetuates the silly fiction that if one cannot draw a straight line between the content of a course and one's future life, it must be unreasonable to require students seeking a certain credential to take it. She picks the language requirement to trivialize. Now it's true that, language education being my field, a piece making light of that requirement might get my attention faster than one on, say, humanities. But I should be just as fast to respond if it were another curricular component that she had decided was beneath her, and if I focus on foreign language, I am no less concerned with other disciplines. But language is Cooper's target for trivialization, so here we go. I concur with anyone who says that foreign languages should be studied because they can, and sometimes must be, used. And I agree that we do well to acquaint ourselves with other cultures. All true. But I also agree that most students required to study a foreign language may not find it necessary to deploy their skills to talk themselves out of trouble. (Were that not so, students might not have the Uzbek option.) But what of the challenge to the mind that the attempt to internalize another way of organizing reality poses? What of the difference between this challenge and those posed by math, the arts and the sciences? Are students not here to tweak and tease their minds in as many different ways as possible, so that, when actual, real-life intellectual challenges lie in their path (whatever their nature), they are better prepared? For a journalism student in particular (and a senior at that), it is lamentable that Cooper should take the tack she does. As a wordsmith-in-the-making, she's training to shape her own thoughts, and ultimately those of her readers, through her writing. Language is her chosen tool, and internalizing, even in a limited way, another language will enhance her ability to do that, whether she thinks so or not. She might have used the opportunity and the privilege of assigned column space to urge her fellow students to accept and take advantage of challenges before her, but instead she chose to play to the crowd. Her message: "I can take a pass on this challenge: you can, too." Not an education major, she may not think of herself as an educator, but, that's just what a journalist is. What's she trying to teach? As a bonus, she throws in some very crappy French. David Wren
Professor, Department of Spanish & Portuguese Journalists should represent government and citizens fairly Reading the Indiana Daily Student article, "Local groups express concern with I-69 work" (May 24), we question your practice of discrediting citizens with journalistic disclaimers like "opponents claim" and make "allegations." Like many of the state's newspapers, citizens' comments are presented with skeptical modifiers while the Indiana Department of Transportation's and government officials' statements are not similarly treated. To gain objectivity, the Danish government funded a study of the United States' highway funding and looked for the answer to, "Why do highway projects always come in over budget?" The conclusion to this study: state DOT officials understate costs, overstate benefits and even lie in order to do what they do -- build highways. To find this respected 2002 study, do an Internet search for "Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie," by Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm and Soren Buhl. It is available as a PDF file at http://home.planet.nl/~viss1197/japaflyvbjerg.pdf Our INDOT carries on this tradition, led by an Evansville University graduate of political science. The comments of these "officials" should not be given preferred treatment. Our state's media needs to function as a "free press" guardian of "public" interests by treating public officials' comments regarding I-69 no better than the researched comments of concerned citizen groups. John Smith
COUNT US! director Solsberry, Ind. Constitution protects even offensive symbols I have to agree with the editorial about the Confederate Flag ("Muncie wrong to ban flags," May 27). The primary issue here is freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. Some people will agree with the mayor's decision to ban the flag. They may be offended by the flag and wish to never see it in public. That's fine. The Constitution does not guarantee us the right to not be offended. Being offended is how some will choose to react to something. Again, nowhere in the Constitution is not being offended a right. When we let elected officials and appointed judges determine for us what constitutional rights will and won't be enforced, then we are in big trouble. When we allow any government to decide for itself what its powers are, then it's time for a change. Once a constitutional right has become the victim of compromise and precedent, then it is gone. It may already be too late, but we must still try as best we can. Bob Hollard
Carnation, Wa. Confederate flag no more divisive than U.S. flag I reject the argument that the Confederate flag is divisive. What is truly divisive is the effort to demonize and smear the flag under which our ancestors honorably and bravely fought and died. When judged fairly, the Confederate flag is no more divisive or racist than the Stars and Stripes. Indeed, far more bad things have been done under the U.S. flag than were ever done under the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag was never intended to symbolize hate or intolerance. I agree that there are aspects of antebellum and Confederate Southern heritage that should be repudiated, such as slavery (an institution protected under the U.S. Constitution and an institution where much of the profit from its labor went to New England). But that doesn't mean that Confederate history and symbols have to be smeared and demonized. There were many, many good and noble things about the antebellum South and the Confederacy. Southern-heritage defenders prefer to see the Confederate flag as a symbol of the honorable principles it was intended to represent, just as all Americans repudiate the wrongs that have been done under the American flag and prefer to emphasize the good that Old Glory represents. Mike Helmick
Gurley, Ala. Confederate flag argument not so simple Though it's not politically correct for our history books to report, black slaves and free blacks were among the men who fought and died heroically for the cause of the Confederacy. Professor Edward Smith, director of American studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully-equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam -- the war's bloodiest battle. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. These black Confederates no more fought to preserve slavery than their successors fought in World War I and World War II to preserve Jim Crow and segregation. They fought because their homeland was attacked. The flap over the Confederate Battle Flag is not quite as simple as the nation's race experts would like to make it. They want us to believe that the flag is a racist symbol. Yes, racists have used the flag, but racists have also used the Bible and the U.S. flag. Should we get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who are attacking the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic black ancestors who marched, fought and died for the Confederacy. They don't deserve this dishonor. The truth about the flag's meaning is that it represents the noble effort of the South to resist the federal government's unconstitutional efforts to subjugate sovereign states and is the preeminent symbol of resistance to tyranny worldwide. Decisions need to be made based upon the truth. The time is past due for us to think for ourselves and quit allowing the media, Hollywood, the educational establishment and the current orthodoxy to do our thinking for us. The Confederate battle flag is not a racist symbol, and there can be peace and harmony by respecting each other's heritage. John Christensen
Cassville, Mo. Columnist lives his own 'Fantasyland' Brian Adkins needs to remove himself from "Adkinsland" and open his eyes and mind to the reality of the world today -- an unbiased one not featured on foxnews.com. There is no "Pelosigrad" where most Democratic party leaders reside; rather there is just the cold truth that President Bush lied to the American people resulting in the deaths of 800 innocent Americans and that he is leading this country down a dangerous path. In four years, Bush's accomplishments include vanquishing a budget surplus to one of the largest deficits in history, starting an illegitimate war that continues to pour billions of American tax dollars down a black hole, setting back our nation's clean air laws by 20 years, soiling our country's reputation around the world and countless other inexcusable actions. I am constantly bewildered that Bush still has some of America's support. A brief look at his administration reveals the true nature of the beast. On one side you have Vice President Dick Cheney, who received a near-equivalent "salary" of over $190,000 from his former employer Halliburton as part of his severance package to that of his salary of VP. Coincidentally, Halliburton has received several large no-bid contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq and, rather noncoincidentally, they have been charged with defrauding the government of millions over food and gas payments. On the other side you have U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who used a liar and thief, Ahmad Chalabi as a main source for information in planning the attack on Iraq. Furthermore, to tie Iraq to Sept. 11 is just plain ignorant. There was and still is no evidence suggesting that Saddam had any connection with 9/11. The truth of the matter lies in that Bush diverted $700 million designated for Afghanistan to fight the real war on terror -- i.e. al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden -- for preparing for an invasion in Iraq. What exactly is going on in the real world? Adkins needs to come down from his ivory tower and serve the IU reading public with valid opinions based on fact and logic. Justin Myers
Graduate student Relaxed attitude over fake IDs problematic It is surprising to me to read such a hymn in praise of a criminal pursuit as Joanna Penn's "IDs, exhilaration, grief" (May 27). I know: "College is a time to get wild." "It's just part of growing up." "Our alcohol laws are irrational and counterproductive." These arguments are irrelevant, and their truth is questionable. Penn's attitude betrays a disregard for laws that she finds inconvenient or objectionable. This attitude is corrosive to society and provides arguments for more expensive and comprehensive means of preventing and punishing the breaking of such laws. More practically, this attitude is extremely dangerous to anyone in the vicinity. For example, the bar where Penn uses her fake ID could be sued and shut down if her fraud is not detected by the bar but is detected by law-enforcement officials. Another, similar example is traffic laws; many people find them inconvenient and simply disregard them. This can lead to fatal results for all involved. If you honestly disagree with a law, work to change it. Not only will you benefit from the change, so will others. You will also be able to point to a real improvement in the world that you are responsible for. If, as I suspect is closer to reality, your interest in legislation is limited only to avoiding the consequences of breaking laws, I can only hope that you quickly adopt a more mature, responsible and socially acceptable attitude. As a poor second choice, I hope that individuals whose actions reflect such selfish and criminal attitudes like Penn are detected as fast as possible, and that their behavior is punished appropriately. When you graduate I hope that you proudly show your potential employers this article. I'm sure that they will appreciate your disregard for inconvenient rules. John Johnson
Bloomington