E-mail forwarding not in jeopardy
\nOn Sept. 13, the Indiana Daily Student published an editorial regarding e-mail ("Keep moving forward with e-mail"), with comments specifically about forwarding options from Webmail. \nIt's highly unlikely that University Information Technology Services will prohibit students from forwarding their IU e-mail accounts to external services such as Yahoo and AOL. Implying to readers that it is a probable response to spam is merely causing undue angst. There are many other options that we can explore before taking that dramatic step. IU e-mail users can help with the escalating spam problem. \nUITS has a robust spam filtering service to which all IU e-mail users can subscribe. Everyone at IU can find instructions for subscribing at http://kb.iu.edu/data/ankf.html. Users who need assistance can contact the UITS Support Center at 855-6789 or e-mail ithelp@iu.edu. While no method can eliminate all incoming spam, those who have used this filter have experienced a dramatic drop in spam. Unfortunately, only 10 percent of e-mail users are subscribed to this spam filtering service. We must get that number much higher. Of course, a reduction in incoming spam reduces the amount of forwarded spam, and so reduces the amount of spam appearing to originate from IU and would help the blocklisting problem. There are also many other articles in the online Knowledge base about spam and what users can do to reduce the spam that they receive. Readers can go to http://kb.iu.edu and search on "spam."\nWe understand that many students don't like the Webmail interface. UITS analyzes all feedback and comments related to Webmail and to other aspects of the e-mail services UITS provides, and we strive to enhance those services based on that input. We certainly know that e-mail systems and other components of the IU information technology infrastructure are critical to the success of IU students, faculty and staff.\nWe have been developing plans for two e-mail study groups, one for student e-mail and one for faculty and staff e-mail. Once in place and active, I hope that input from these groups will help guide the direction of student e-mail services at IU during the next few years.Mark S. Bruhn\nAssociate vice president for \ntelecommunications
A step back for equality
\nThe Sept. 20 staff editorial ("Taking hate crime laws in the right direction") praised the U.S. House of Representatives for including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in federal hate crime laws.\nThe federal government should not be in the business of dealing with local crime at all. Federal involvement in local law enforcement has more serious implications for individual liberty than whether or not a specific group is protected under so-called "hate crime" laws. Now that the door is open there is room for further expansion of federal power. Do we really want the same people who passed the "Patriot Act" dealing with local crime?\nThe entire notion of "hate crimes" should be wiped from our criminal justice system. While the IDS is right that intent is the key to our criminal justice system, intent is not the same thing as motivation. While most people rightly recognize that racism is immoral, society should not be in the business of punishing thoughts and beliefs, no matter how offensive those thoughts and beliefs might be. \nLabeling one crime a "hate crime" and punishing it more severely sends the message that some victims of crime are more important than others. Creating special rights for people who are targeted by "hate crimes" does not advance the cause of equal rights. \nInstead of setting up special categories of crime based on motivation (as opposed to intent), the criminal justice system should punish all violent crime as harshly as constitutionally permissible.Scott Tibbs\nAlumnus
Passing on the guilt
\nMr. Levi Harris runs the risk of being condemned to a Religionist's hell by having brought the concept of "Mens Rea" to public attention ("Living with a guilty mind," Sept. 13). Heretofore it may have been a potential problem for legal minds only. Now, however, you have gone and exposed all of your readers to the knowledge of trauma induced by inflicting the "guilty mind" on their offspring.\nCan I safely assume that fathers, other than male Pentecostal ministers, also indulge in passing the curse of "Mens Rea" onto innocent young minds? And can it be that the brilliant legal mind of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts also subjects the psyche of 4-year-old son Jack to religion-induced fear? Could he possibly be whispering to a transiently happy and smiling Jack (see photo, page 5 of the Sept. 13 edition), "you better be good at the hearings young man, or the Devil will get you?"\nMr. Harris offers several "treatments" for a religion-indoctrinated "Guilty Mind," but fails to mention the one treatment that has the potential to effect a cure. Namely, let reason instead of religion guide parents in their child rearing.Emanuel Klein\nIU retiree
Objective shooting coverage
\nI wanted to say thank you to (the IDS) staff for making sure that the coverage about the fights and shootings Sunday evening was as objective as possible. It's clear that the response by some of the community is related to the past history of this region of the state showing bias toward the black community. It's my opinion that at least the fight was something that could have been avoided. I was suspicious when people entering the party needed to be patted down prior to entry, which tells me someone was expecting to find weapons of some sort. However, that's for the police to iron out.\nI just wanted to pass on my thanks for going above and beyond to make sure that the story was reported as well as it could be. Being at a school where various minorities are present, it's not easy to print news without someone getting upset. The IDS has done a very detailed and well researched job with this story and I believe that the gist of what happened was represented. It's something I would expect of a paper with the reputation of the IDS. Keep up the good work.Todd Waugh\nSenior
Two-way street
\nWe all have seen the Little 500 riders cycling around town in their uniforms and fast-looking bikes. They travel in groups and always wear helmets. While I admire their dedication to the sport of cycling and their ability to balance on two skinny wheels, I do not admire the fact that these cyclists often disregard general traffic safety. Just today, a group of riders approached a line of stopped cars on Third Street during the 5 p.m. "rush hour." Rather than yielding until traffic moved forward, these riders tried passing on the right side of the stopped cars. Well, needless to say, one unfortunate rider could not squeeze between the right side of the cars and the curb, he lost his balance and slammed his bike into the side of a stopped car. I am glad to say that he was OK, and his helmet definitely saved him some injury. I think he might have dented the car. But, please, riders, travel safely! If you want cars to respect your space, then you should equally respect their space. This means please try to mind traffic flows and be more thoughtful when riding on such busy streets. Perhaps the adrenaline rush of being seen in your colorful Little 5 uniforms inhibits rational decision-making when it comes to sharing the road. Save your wrecks for the track.Nick Hillman\nPh.D. student
United States needs accountability
\nBrian Stewart, the apostle of security, writes about the superiority of the United States, but remains nebulous about what he means ("A war of choice, Sept. 9; "The security of liberty," Sept. 15). Would our superiority come from trampling the Geneva Convention? Would our superiority come from debasing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Would our superiority come from our refusal to participate in the International Criminal Court? Would this superiority give us the right and the "superior discretion" to commit war crimes in quasi-total impunity? Only people who willingly and blindly believe in the ideology of dominance, which portrays the United States as a benevolent force, could so readily accept that the United States has any inherent rights to make regime changes across the globe. \nInstead of speaking of superiority, we should be talking about lucidity. It could have been a step towards lucidity if the United States learned anything from Sept. 11. Unfortunately, the United States chose to follow, yet again, the path of historical denial and unaccountability. Our administration has chosen the path of fundamentalism to fight fundamentalism. \nThe shame is not that people fight against security measures such as the Patriot Act but that most of us love to ignore the realities of the world. Should our liberties and those of Western Europe be paid in blood and misery by the rest of the world?François Mulot\nGraduate student
Wrongly judging Roberts
\nI offer this letter as a rebuttal to Amanda Dorman's article of Sept. 16, "Judging Roberts." Amanda makes several assertions that are misleading and/or false regarding Judge John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Amanda discussed a legal brief in which she claimed Judge Roberts wrote, "We continue to believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Judge Roberts was one of eight co-authors of this brief, and it cannot be credibly claimed that it was Judge Roberts who wrote this specific passage. We also find that Judge Roberts co-authored this brief while serving as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. In that capacity, he was arguing for his client, the president of the United States, and he was not expressing his own views on the subject. However, when testifying before the Senate, Judge Roberts did say, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land … There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." This quote is a much better barometer of Judge Robert's true personal stance on the issue. When discussing the possibility of overturning a precedent, Judge Roberts said, "It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided." These quotes lead us to question Amanda's contention that if Judge Roberts was confirmed, then "a woman's right to an abortion could be destroyed and equality under the law could be reversed." In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Though Amanda is certainly entitled to expressing her opinion and arguing in support of her views, it is telling that she has to resort to using misleading arguments to do so.Brian Bartlett\nSenior
