Thank you for the support
On behalf of the men’s basketball team I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Campus Times for a tremendous job well done in keeping the UR community informed on our progress through the NCAA tournament.
The efforts you spearheaded resulted in a level of support that has not been seen in a long time on campus, and played a role in some of the things we were able to accomplish this season.
Whether it was e-mails, postings on the Campus Times Web site or flyers that we saw up seemingly minutes after our games had even ended, we just wanted to recognize your hard work and extend our thanks.
Hopefully our team can continue to bring pride to the university knowing that your team will be supporting us all the way. Thanks again.
? Tim Sweeney Class of 2003On behalf of the entire Men’s Basketball Team
NROTC shouldn’t be shocked
I just don’t get it. Why is it that when members of NROTC painted over a mural in the tunnels in order to “express our passion about the Navy and Marine Corps,” it was okay, but when some students painted over thier mural (assumedly to express their views) it was not okay?
The only difference that I can see in what the desecrators did and what the NROTC members did is that the NROTC members painted a solid background over the previous mural. I do not understand why the NROTC members were shocked over the new paintings.
One of the consequences of painting the tunnel is that your mural will not stay intact for very long. It is because of this that I find it hard to view the descrators’ painting as vandalism. If one group of students is allowed to paint on the tunnel walls, then why aren’t all students?
The writers of the article claim that the goal of the military is not to just go into an area and start killing everyone, but to defend our way life. If this is true, then they must also accept our way of life, or else why defend it?
Part of that way of life is to be able to express yourself. Just because the desecrators’ point of view is different than yours, does that mean they should be chastised for expressing themselves in a peaceful manner?
? Jim Mullen Class of 2005
Preaching to the converted
David Pascoe’s article is full of sweeping generalization attacking liberals, while painting conservatives as victims. The first of these generalizations is that liberals outnumber conservatives on our campus.
If this were the case, then the countless events that I am a part of organizing should have better attendance. At this time, 20 or so of my liberal friends attend these events. This hardly constitutes a ten to one liberal to conservative ratio.
The second generalization is that liberals do not have to prove their convictions because everybody agrees with them. Clearly, Pascoe has not studied No Sweat’s record of accomplishment. If he does then he will know that we have been quite unsuccessful.
Besides generalizing, Pascoe tries to link liberals to charged words such as socialism, while conservatives are logical and reasonable, but the only proof he provides are clichd assumptions that are the stock of conservative punditry.
The irony, that I am sure is lost on Pascoe, is that he uses every tactic ascribed to liberals in deriding liberals. “Many in our organization are also on the debate team, so after a few actual facts were spoken the insurgent quickly and quietly made his exit,” says Pascoe. What facts are you talking about and is being on the debate team a qualification?
It seems to me that if Pascoe was interested in writing something with insight, then I would be willing to listen, but instead Pascoe has chosen the easy route by preaching to the converted.
This might have value at College Republican meetings, but certainly not on the pages of the Campus Times.
? Mansoor Khan Class of 2003
Content of CT unacademic
ader of the Campus Times in recent years, and since I no longer teach classes or draw a salary, and my office here in Hylan is in a remote part of campus, I see or speak with rather few undergraduate students.
However, for the first time in years, I read the March 7 edition of Campus Times rather thoroughly, to seek out what was on the minds of UR students these days.
The one thing I did not find was any mention of what used to be called academics ? at least by athletic coaches. In the entire paper there was never a mention of a department, of a professor (except that Professor Tipton of physics was quoted as having nothing to say about whether a certain child had been a genius, or even present, in his Physics 110 class) or of a course (except for Physics 110 as mentioned). There was no mention of grades, examinations, textbooks, lectures or of anything whatever that would suggest the purpose for which this university was founded. Not even its administrative aspect, apart from housing and the general social order, was mentioned.
The nearest thing to intellectual concerns mentioned in the whole edition were debating and music, though the music discussed was mostly pop entertainment. I was unable to determine from the debating article what the subject matter was for the debates this year.
Even articles on sports say more about the content of the sport than the debating article said about the content of that particular competition.
Hate and graffiti are social problems, to be sure, and so are robbery and fraud, but the content of the commentary on these matters was no deeper than a deploring of the obviously deplorable.
Yet the Campus Times is very well written and composed. Can it be that the editors and writers are correctly representing the UR students’ main interests?
If so, the range described is strikingly narrow.
? Ralph Raimi Professor Emeritus of Mathematics
