Where's the student support?
This letter is in response to Chris Engel's complaint about the athletic department's disregard for non-student athletes ("Athletics department drops the ball," Sept. 22). I know many students on this campus are frustrated and confused with IU athletics' apparent fiscal intrusions. I would just like to offer a different perspective — that of an IU athlete. I am a varsity athlete and Engel's article outraged some of my fellow teammates. It hurts us to see the lack of support from our student body. Engel said, "we are the best support you have," but if that is the case, why would you complain about paying $4 to see a soccer game? Moreover, my team, the diving team, is home to a nationally-renowned group of divers. Almost every week during our season we put on a world class competition for free and no one shows up! Where is this so-called "support," exactly? I know that, temporarily, the athletics department is asking for a helping hand financially, but that is what a community is about. I know there are misconceptions about how college athletes are so spoiled with scholarships and apparel and all kinds of benefits. But many IU athletes aren't on scholarship at all. Many of them go to two practices a day, miss classes for competitions, get up to lift weights before sunrise and completely miss out on any chance of a social life — all for the glory of old IU. We sacrifice to uphold tradition, to make our school and our student body proud. In return, the students are asked to sacrifice $4 for some seats at the basketball stadium. I know that was a concern of yours, Engel, those old people who sit in the front row at the basketball games. Do you know who they are? Donors, Engel, donors. They give hard-earned money to the athletic department at IU because they know how important and well needed it is. So the next time you find yourself whining about your crappy seats at a game, remember you complained about $4.Lisa Silvestri
Senior
Bayh puts principle ahead of politics
On Monday, the IDS chose to buy into the myth that politicians have no principles, condemning Sen. Evan Bayh's vote on John Roberts as political posturing ("Bayh's disappointing stance on Judge Roberts," Sept. 26). I could not disagree more. Evan Bayh's vote against John Roberts shows a politician who has a genuine concern for our nation's Constitution and those who are to uphold it. The editorial ends with the dubious claim that Roberts should be confirmed simply because he has not shown "why he should not be the chief justice of the Supreme Court." Surely Americans should have a higher standard when selecting the chief person in control of protecting our constitutional liberties. The burden should be on the nominee to prove that they will uphold our individual rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Instead, John Roberts repeatedly dodged pertinent questions that go to the heart of his judicial philosophy. "Impartiality" is not ruined by answering general constitutional questions that do not touch specific cases which might come before the court. Confirming a Supreme Court justice should not be a game of Russian roulette that jeopardizes our liberties. In refusing to endanger these rights and liberties with an evasive candidate for chief justice, Evan Bayh has taken a principled stance for justice.Justin Uebehlor
Senior
Dear IUSA, please stop
I am an IU student who voted in the previous student elections and I have one request of the IU Student Association: Stop whatever it is you are doing. Just stop. This past year, the IUSA has managed to increase our bill by adding a busing expense many students do not use, not stopping the "one-time" athletics fee and managing to not curb our tuition hikes. Oh, and way to really push making this a wet campus. I tell you what, keep your A parking passes, and the $6,000 party. Go ahead and leave Bloomington during the summer, even though you are paid to be here. And by all means spend nearly $50,000 of our money on the "Office Budget." I don't even want to know what you are spending the money on. But please stop doing whatever it is the IUSA has been doing the past few years. That alone would be worth the $108,000 operating budget.David White
Alumnus
IUSA budget is fair
There has been a lot of rhetoric about Alex Shortle's proposed IUSA budget. Most of it seems to be rife with misinformation. In seeking to give students a feel for the way the IUSA budget process has worked in the past, I feel compelled to share my thoughts. With a few usually minute changes in programs, each year, the proposed IUSA budget is generally extremely similar to its predecessor. In particular, the section labeled "Executive Fund" that seems to have some up in arms has been in place from administration to administration with little or no change. This begs the question: Why do IUSA executives need to be compensated for their time? The logical response is that they give so much of their time to the organization. It would be impossible for them to hold a part-time job and keep up with their course work. As Dean McKaig pointed out, student voters do not want IUSA posts only to be held by the wealthy. Benefits like parking permits allow the executives to do their work for the students without incurring personal costs. The meager "Executive Fund" does not begin to cover the time that the men and women of IUSA put into their jobs. Being the voice of the students is a full-time job that classes and studying regulate to part-time hours. Executives are forced to weigh the interests of the good of the student body against their own. The top four executives are paid $4,500 for the year. If we assume that they are taking a course load of 15 credit hours, conservatively, about 25 hours of the 40-hour work week remain for IUSA business. The resultant pay is $5 per hour, 15 cents less than minimum wage. How many students would take a job for less than minimum wage with no tips? Debate about policy that affects the student body is an intricate part of the process of student governance. Continued debate about Shortle's budget demonstrates that the IU student body cares about their community. It is equally important that the facts are correct.Matt Dattilo
Alumnus and former IUSA public relations director
Illegal immigrants shouldn't receive aid
I am writing to express my absolute disgust at Felipe Maya's column ("Ignored victims," Sept. 18), in which he attacks our government for enforcing our laws in the aftermath of the hurricane tragedy. Lawlessness is what caused this problem in the first place. When Rita, a much stronger hurricane, hit Texas, there was not the mass chaos that ensued after Katrina. That is because of the character of the people of Texas and their ability to maintain composure, whereas in New Orleans they had a reenactment of "Lord of the Flies." Keeping law and order should be the first priority in a crisis. The very presence of an illegal immigrant already shows their disregard for our laws and way of life. If they will not respect our immigration laws, why would they respect any of our other laws? These people are criminals and should be treated accordingly. Getting rid of them will cut down on the looting and general lawlessness that happens after disasters. Further more, giving aid to these people takes away from what should be going to our citizens. Since they are not here legally, we have no moral or legal responsibility for their well-being.John Pittman
Senior
Defining intelligent design
I am writing about an error in "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design," Sept. 27, as well as my analysis of the scientific process. In the article, the author defined intelligent design as "… the idea that some biological structures are too complex to be a result of evolution ...." This idea is not intelligent design, but irreducible complexity. Although irreducible complexity is used by supporters of ID, it is not part of the conceptual framework. Additionally, supporters of ID have other arguments that support ID, but arguments do not constitute the foundations of a conceptual framework. Therefore, we still may want to have a larger umbrella defining ID. According to Wikipedia, ID is the "assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent…." Scientific theory proposes various alternative falsifiable hypotheses which are then compared with data. Theories that are worse at predicting and explaining data are generally rejected in favor of theories that better explain the data. Are ID's criticisms of science accurate? I don't know, but to point to questions in modern theory and then throw up your hands and say "It must mean a designer!" is not within the scientific paradigm. What unique empirical results would ID assert, how can we test them, does the data prove the framework false, and does the analysis meet with peer review? Now that is science. To my awareness, supporters of ID have yet to approach this framework in this manner. Quite possibly, it might even be impossible to set up a falsifiable scientific theory within ID's framework. This begs the question: Should we teach our children science at all? My biased answer: To remain competitive and capable in the global economy, yes.Brandon Zerbe
Associate instructor of physics
