Bill could help provide better academic experience\nI am writing this letter in support of the Academic Bill of Rights proposed by David Horowitz, the editor of Front Page Magazine. As a student and a conservative, this bill means the freedom for me to better shape my personal academic experience. I am a history major and have taken numerous political science courses at IU. \nI find that every semester a number of my COAS professors present material with a definite liberal bias. When I write papers and exams, I am sure to not include overwhelmingly conservative ideas but to limit my answers to as non partisan of an analysis as possible. Most of the time this approach is very appropriate for my academic work but often the questions and topics themselves demand a response that is politically oriented. \nFor example, how does a student answer a question that asks him or her to make an argument about the war on terrorism or civil liberties without making a political stance? Many students are not comfortable responding to questions of this nature because of their political beliefs. This apprehension about revealing any conservative bias limits a student's academic experience. \nThe Academic Bill of Rights will give students a legitimate piece of legislation to point to when they are discriminated against for their political views. \nThis bill helps to ensure that academia will not become entirely divorced from the traditional values held by the citizens of our great state. \nThis bill will provide students with the assurance that the educators that they are paying tuition for have been selected based on their merit, not political beliefs. \nThis bill will send the message to Indiana's universities that conservative students and faculty have wanted to for so long. That message is that we will not be silenced, we will not be indoctrinated, and we will not sit by idly as our classrooms are used as bully pulpits for left-wing ideology. \nDavid White\nPolitical Director\nIndiana University College Republicans
A biased Bill of Rights\nProponents of the Academic Bill of Rights argue that there is a "liberal" bias in the classroom. But how do we mean liberalism? I know it to mean two different things: one, relating to the political belief and Democratic affiliation, the other, meaning openness to new ideas, change, self-improvement and ideas. \nAddressing the first definition of liberalism, I argue that our current system is already free from political indoctrination. Our professors hold to standards set up not only by the University, but by personal and professional standards of ethics and decency. I have never been in a situation where my instructor's political beliefs have indoctrinated me or have offended me. I cannot deny that I have witnessed expressions of political beliefs in the classroom, but I have never experienced a situation where the topic was not relevant or addressable in the form of questions and debate. \nAddressing the second definition, I believe that our classrooms are filled with debate, discourse and questions. We do not need legislation to force that upon us in the form of two-sided explanations; i.e., an instructor should not be forced to teach on all sides of an argument or teach using a standardized approach. Instructors should conduct the courses as unbiased as possible, but the students must be held responsible for raising questions themselves. Learning is not one-sided in any case. If one wishes to learn about other ideas and positions, then one must ask questions. \nIn either case, if the instructor is found to be acting on a personal bias or faculty hiring, etc., on anything more than a professional basis, then oversight must be had, and action taken, by members of the University, based on pre-established codes of conduct, not by legislators in Indianapolis. University education is liberal, but it is liberal in the latter case. We are here to free our minds and explore the world around us. Introducing the Academic Bill of Rights on this campus will only limit our exploration, confine our educators and discourage learning with biases against free thought and expression by instructors and students alike.\nJared T. Sloane\nExecutive Director\nIndiana University Civil Liberties Union
IUSA is a joke
This is a response to the article entitled "Vaden, White want to withdraw from IUSA elections" (Feb. 22). I can just hear the conversation between Robert Vaden and D.J. White when they decided to run on the Kirkwood ticket. At practice one day Vaden says, "Hey D.J., you wanna be a Congressman?" White responds, "Yeah. That sounds like a good idea." Then when they came to the realization that they might actually win, they withdrew their candidacy. Come on, guys. Their candidacy debacle not only looks bad on the Kirkwood ticket but simply reaffirms the notion that student government here at IU is a joke. \nAvi Loeswenstein\nSenior
Police tactics questionable\nEdward Delp seems to be missing the point in his opinion article "Election season nonsense." While goals of lowering the drinking age in Bloomington might seem absurd, the party candidates are only speaking to a large portion of IU students who feel persecuted for enjoying what they feel is the normal college experience. While currently a sophomore at IU, I have already had a pistol and paint-ball gun pulled on me by IUPD officers. Both incidents involved non violent underage drinking. Various IUSA tickets are only trying to appeal to students with similar experiences with the IUPD with their, at times, unreachable promises. As a visitor to several Big Ten universities, I am always amazed at the interaction between police officers and students. \nBreaking up large parties is more about making sure everyone gets home safe rather than rounding up as many students as possible to breathalyze. It is strange that IU administration is still scratching their heads trying to figure out the reason behind decreased enrollment, with stories similar to mine definitely making those interested in attending IU think twice. \nNo one is expecting a lawless campus where drug dealers and binge drinkers rule. The safety of students and police officers should always be a top priority. However, I wonder if Mr. Delp and the IUPD truly believe pointing weapons at unarmed students or breathalyzing those who chose to walk instead of drive after drinking are good ways in improving safety on campus. \nAndrew Sokoly\nSophomore
True fans weather ups and downs\nI can recall the days of the not-too-distant past when I could venture into Assembly Hall on game day and witness a sea of red in every last seat. In my four years at IU, I never missed a single game. Classes were skipped. Hangovers were suppressed. Noon weekend tip-offs simply required some aspirin, a pair of cheap sunglasses and a giant bottle of water. I unconditionally supported the program along with thousands of other dedicated fans. Somehow, those days seem to have slipped away with IU's current student body.\nOn Sunday I couldn't believe my eyes as I saw the empty chunks of seats in the student's lower level and the half-empty balcony. IU lined up against the No. 10-ranked Spartans on national television, and Assembly Hall couldn't be filled. It made me beg the question: Has Bloomington's student body gone from one the largest and classiest in the nation to an apathetic clan of bandwagon fans? \nThe tradition of IU basketball has suffered ups and downs just like any other program. Even our last beloved coach had some -- dare I say it? -- sub-par seasons in his tenure. For the student body to seemingly give up on our team is unbelievable. This year's young squad has truthfully been a little tough to watch at times. IU is definitely in the midst of (pardon the comparison) a Season on the Brink. But that is all the more reason for students and alumni to show support and pick our Hoosiers up when they need it.\nThe crowd who showed up on Sunday did so in full force. The students who are still loyal fans are as raucous and as creative as ever, and they were definitely a factor in IU's awesome victory over Michigan State. The only problem is that the loyalists and true fans have dwindled in number. Has IU struggled the past two years? Yes. Is that any reason for everyone to stop showing up, especially in big game situations? Absolutely not. IU basketball is on the rise, and I feel sorry for those who aren't able to see it happen. Fans are a large, significant aspect of all the top basketball programs in the country. I only hope our students can quickly regain the dedication it takes for us to truly be back in the spotlight where IU belongs and will be very shortly.\nErik Long\n2002 Alumnus
Government lies about actions in Iraq\nWe are writing in response to Sergeant Robert Fortson's accusation in the IDS (Feb. 22) that Against the Occupation of Iraq lied about U.S. actions in Iraq. The U.S. government lies. We do not. The fact that your weapon systems are accurate is no proof that the military does not use them against civilians. Since 1991, the United States and its allies have waged war against Iraqis, not just Hussein's government. The bombing of hospitals, water purification plants, roads, bridges and schools constitutes proof of the military's disregard for Iraqis. Sergeant, do not simply rely on mainstream American press.\nHow can you call the aggressive invasion of Iraq a "just war?" Wars are always an abomination, but especially when fought under false pretenses. The government lied about WMDs and Baathist support of al-Qaida to hide its real motives -- oil and geopolitical hegemony. You want us to accept civilian casualties. We cannot accept such disregard for lives. Innocents are dying because of the government's lies. Our soldiers are not fighting for us but for the benefit and interests of a few men, for whom a dollar, a dime, a cent is more valuable than a human life. Iraqis and our soldiers are victims of political and corporate greed and deception.\nYou also claim that no war crimes are being committed. During the attack on Fallujah, U.S. forces bombed hospitals, used modified napalm, depleted uranium shells, poisonous gases and denied civilians water, electricity and evacuation. The administration also authorized the use of torture as long as it doesn't reach the pain equivalent to permanent organ damage or death. These are all violations of the Geneva Conventions.\nThe U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan ordered several candidates not to run for election. Due to widespread fraud, all 15 of the opposition candidates boycotted that election. In Iraq, the United States made a similar farce of democracy. Even if the United States magically were to create democracies, this would not erase war crimes. Unfortunately, the United States has not freed millions of Iraqis or Afghanis, but has certainly killed tens of thousands.\nSandrine Catris\nGraduate Student\nAOI co-founder
Why the U.S. should let Russia go\nIn the Feb. 24 IDS I came across the article "Will Bratislava be Yalta II?" by Charlie Szrom. In it, he argued that President Bush should act on his professed principles and criticize the actions Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken to lock down democracy in his country. I, however, have a great deal of reservations with such a policy.\nDon't get me wrong, what Russia is doing to eliminate dissent and public debate (a necessity for healthy democracy) is utterly deplorable. However, is President Bush in any position to do anything about it and still be able to achieve all his other goals in the world? After all, Putin has been one of the strongest supporters of the War on Terrorism, and if Bush is to democratize the world, at the very least he shouldn't have Russia working against him.\nThis is what we in political science call the effectiveness trap. To have the support to enact our beliefs, we are required to turn a blind eye to some of those who defy them. The example of how we support Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (who seized power in a coup) so we can build democracy in Afghanistan comes to mind.\nFurthermore, even if Bush condemned Putin, would that change anything? He isn't likely to change just because we disapprove, and we are in no position to force that change. Even if we could, forcing a change of government (which could likely be violent) in a nation with nuclear weapons is a recipe for disaster. Russia can't be changed because we have no real leverage.\nDenouncing Russia, just diplomatically, will only make it insular, and more hostile to the western world (sort of like a much larger and closer North Korea). Which is why instead of trying to punish Russia, we should be trying to welcome it into international institutions like the WTO. Only then, when Russia has built a thriving economy on major economic ties to the United States and Europe, can we have the leverage to force Russia into reform. \nWesley Shaker\nSophomore
Sergeant buys into Orwellian speak\nSergeant Robert Fortsons' letter (Feb. 22) regarding the Iraq war and military bashing was remarkably uniformed and requires response.\nFirst, the Iraq war is criminal in that it violates international law. The U.S. attacked a sovereign nation that had not attacked it. This is the gravest of violations. There was no threat. Iraq's political leadership was irrelevant. We started a war. \nThe killing of any Iraqi civilian or military personnel is criminal. All people have the inalienable right to defend their homeland by any means necessary. Civilians have been shot in their beds. Patients have been removed from hospitals. Civilian medical staff have been assaulted. Utility systems have been intentionally destroyed. Cluster bombs and napalm have been used in civilian areas. Prisoners have been tortured, raped and murdered. Security has not been maintained as mandated to all occupying armies by international law. \nAll of these crimes have been documented and reported in photographs, in reports by the International Red Cross, by independent media outlets, in reports by the U.S. government, in testimony by civilian Iraqi medical personnel and by American service members.\nAs for freedom, the murder of more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians provides to the surviving relatives only the freedom to choose burial arrangements. If we continue to be so good to the Iraqis, it won't be long before they're all underground, blown apart or eaten by dogs in Fallujah. Should they thank you and your accurate weapons systems for that, Sergeant? \nIf the importation of rampant corruption and election fraud are examples of honor and integrity, you are correct, Sergeant. I don't know anything about those words. Did the government issue you a dictionary of Orwellian words? Where can I get one? \nI support the troops and the president through taxation. You want me to be thrilled about it too? How will my approval shorten the war? Germany and Japan's militaries were only stopped by violence. My guess is that the only way the flailing monster of American militarism will be stopped is by violence. Or would the application of rational thought, justice and ethical behavior be too much to ask?\nI leave you with two questions: What disease of the brain allows one to believe that the Iraq war is the dispensation of liberty? Who is better to die in a war: a soldier or a civilian? \nJohn Cook\nAlumnus
Bush has Cold War experience\nI'm impressed by your essay ("Will Bratislava be Yalta II?" Charlie Szrom, Feb. 24), but unfortunately, I don't agree with your idea. I sensed a Cold War analogy in your words. However, current Russia is not the former U.S.S.R., as Putin is not -- also will not able to be -- Stalin. I think President Bush, a man experienced in the Cold War, knows what he's doing.\nSi Qin\nFreshman
Same-sex marriage ban not helpful\nRecently, Indiana moved closer to outlawing same-gender marriage by passing Senate Joint Resolution 7. But how will passing this amendment truly benefit marriage, or Indiana? How exactly has marriage been degraded by the actions of loving people who seek the same rights and acceptance as everybody else in Indiana? And since this legislation will also outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships, I ask how will Indiana benefit from taking this action? How will Indiana benefit from gay and lesbian Hoosiers deciding that they want to move to a state that will be more accepting of them? How will Indiana benefit from companies deciding not to bring their businesses and jobs to this state because the law says that they can't offer their GLBT employees domestic partner benefits? How will Indiana University benefit from being told that it can't offer domestic partner benefits to its GLBT employees? And lastly, of all the threats to marriage and families, how do the actions of loving same-gender couples outweigh issues like the economy, a lack of jobs, poor access to education and health care, high rates of divorce and abortion and rising costs of raising a family in general?\nMatthew Briddell\nSenior
