‘Greek Week’ Weak
I was monumentally disappointed with the Campus Times’ description of Greek Week as it was published on Thursday, Nov. 13. As a member of the Greek Community, it is horrifically disappointing to see the Campus Times consistently printing front-page articles that focus solely on the negative events that have occurred in a few select organizations.
In orchestrating an all-Greek awareness week, the Greek community wanted to not only do something positive for this campus and the campus community, but to prove that being Greek is in no way about drinking and hazing, and that those commonly-held beliefs are misconceptions and stereotypes.
First, in a number of seriously distorted pieces of printed information, the title described the event as “Panhell – spelled wrong – Week,” when in actuality, the entire Greek Community helped to organize the event – hence its actual name being GREEK WEEK.
Secondly, the date of Delta Gamma’s philanthropy Anchor Splash was incorrect, and Alpha Traz was described as an “alcohol-free party” and the fact that it was also a philanthropy was never even mentioned. Still worse, the panel discussion sponsored by SALSA and Zeta Phi Beta Sorority was never even referenced.
If the Campus Times wants to constantly print front-page articles that portray the Greeks on this campus as alcoholic party animals, then it owes us the opportunity talk back and to tell our side of the story.
We deserve the right to prove that we are not the negative stereotype we are portrayed as, and we deserve the opportunity to communicate how much we care about this campus, and our community while the CT spotlights the negative and buries the positive in the back pages of the paper, after distorting the facts. It’s time the Campus Times started truly being an unbiased publication, and it can start by printing this letter.
-Jessica Marabella Class of ’05
Rob Clemm’s ability to draw conclusions that are quite disparate from the premises his reasoning is based on is truly remarkable.
In the Nov. 13 issue of the CT he argued that current political trends are positive for Bush’s hopes in the 2004 election, managing to slip in a healthy amount of implicit insults, ad hominem and bravado in along the way.
Unfortunately, while such attitude is entertaining and perhaps even sells better than a truly academic examination of the situation, it turns out that deductive reasoning shows many of Clemm’s conclusions to be dubious at best.
The foundation of Clemm’s argument lies in the recent election of Republican governors to Mississippi, Kentucky, and California. Valid conclusions that could be drawn from this include the fact that the GOP is doing better in those particular states than it used to, the fact that the Democratic Party is in a bit of disarray at the moment and the fact that the South is generally becoming more and more Republican.
California is a bit of a different scenario, however, because it was a most unusual election and while Arnold is Republican he also supports abortion rights and gay rights, which makes a vote for him a far cry from a vote for Bush.
And then there’s the recent election of the Democrat Ms. Blanco as governor of Louisiana, showing that the Democrats are not entirely down and out in the south.
But these peccadilloes aside, the most significant flaw in Clemm’s reasoning is that his conclusion simply does not logically follow from his premises. Indeed, recent gubernatorial elections have generally been good news for the GOP, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Bush is sitting pretty.
To conclude that people support Bush because they elected a Republican governor is silly, as just because somebody votes for a Republican on occasion doesn’t mean they like all Republicans ever.
If you want to see what Bush’s approval rating is you simply have to follow Bush’s approval rating, which is regularly polled by any number of groups, and the first thing you’ll notice is that it’s been steadily declining.
So if Republicans wish to sit on their laurels and believe that Bush is invincible, so be it. Doing so will only make it easier for the rest of us to make a bit of a regime change happen in 2004.
-Aaron Gallant Class of ’05
I was one who attended the panel on gay marriage who was very disappointed with the format. It was not representative of the opposition to gay marriage. To take the side of being for gay marriage is to take the path of least resistance. The conscience is universal, and everyone knows in their heart it is wrong.
Many people are not sensitive to right and wrong because they have been convinced by others that it is OK or they have desensitized themselves to feeling because they have ignored their conscience for so long. Choices that destroy the spirit are more serious than choices that affect the physical body.
Immorality is a serious subject. The mood of the panel did not depict the nature of its seriousness. I have many friends whose lives and families have been destroyed by homosexuality. People that engage in the act of homosexuality can never have a peace of conscience, and seek societal approval to falsely ease their guilt.
They want to be flattered by others into thinking that they do not have a choice as to their sexual orientation. Of course an opinion like mine would never be expressed in a panel because of its potential to make others mad.
No one really cares that I was offended to have my opinion disregarded because it represented the opposition. Truth will never ask for the umbrella of tolerance.
I do not care to be tolerated, I just ask for the equal right to the freedom of expression. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. Families are the basic unit of society. Many great nations in history, including the Roman Empire, were destroyed because of their acceptance of immorality.
Immorality leads to the destruction of families, the basic unit of society. It leads to poverty, confusion, and the destruction of nations. The fact is that wickedness never was, is not currently, and never will be happiness. Freedom is not a right. It is a responsibility earned by a society who makes good choices. The Constitution can only be upheld by a moral people who respect the laws of the God who inspired it.
People may choose to make poor choices, but the consequences affect not only their personal lives, but all around them. To say that people do not have a choice undermines the strength and fortitude of humankind.
We are not victims, but people who can act and think for ourselves. We are not animals, but spirit children of a living God with the potential to be like Him if we will choose what is right.
– Melanie Smith Nursing Graduate Student