Professor criticizes administration's approach to Honors Program changes

To the editor:

The major issues concerning the Honors Program changes discussed in College Senate on March 20 and covered in The Lamron on March 29 are: (1) whether the changes in size and freshman-to-sophomore ratio are in the best interests of the students in the program or serve some other purpose; and (2) that these changes were mandated by the administration, without consultation with the students or the faculty or the prior and current directors of the program before making the decisions, when they should have been a matter for review and input by the Senate.

When the Honors Program was first proposed in 1986, all the features of the program (including the size and the inclusion of an equal number of sophomores and freshmen) had thorough Senate review, and some aspects were even modified on the basis of this review. Thus, changes in these aspects of the program should have been open to Senate review as well - but instead they were dictated by administrative fiat. Attempts to discuss these issues in the Honors Program Advisory Committee were squelched (it "had not been charged" with "deliberating these issues").

A letter of serious concerns about the possible negative effects of these changes, representing the views of Honors students (both current and alums), the past director of the program (for 18 years), and several faculty who had taught in the program, sent in October, was simply ignored and not even acknowledged. Relevant data regarding the freshman/sophomore ratio in the program (including the fact that the sophomores had generally outperformed the freshmen in the program, and that the sophomores had contributed a very valuable mentoring role) was given a pro forma response and then ignored. It has been claimed that the Honors Program is primarily a recruitment tool, yet in the original College and Senate discussion, retention of our best students was considered at least as important a goal.

Should matters that have been (and should have been) in the purview of the college community (and represented by Senate) be so readily given over to the whims of the administration? We could well be on a slippery slope to essentially having no voice in the most important matters affecting the college as a whole.

-Stacey Edgar

Democrats ask Republicans for public debate

To the editor,

This letter regards the recent "Liberal 'peace vigil' obnoxious and inappropriate" letter which was published in The Lamron on March 29.

We were also in the College Union around 8:15 p.m. when students marched through the union, and we heard their language. However, their words should not be looked at as unsupportive of troops in battle; if anything, their demonstration was an effort to protect the brave men and women who fight a war overseas at the beck and call of a lame-duck commander-in-chief.

To the College Republicans: this is not Vietnam, this is much worse. This is a war that was founded on manipulation and falsified intelligence; this is a war that began with hate. The courageous men and women at the vigil you demean were expressing their views just as you are with your care packages. And may we remind you: political protests like the ones you observed at the Union were used by our founding fathers during the revolution that gave birth to our great country. Oh, and we're pretty sure "invectives" were used then too.

You can't kick a door in and blame everyone else for not helping you to put it back up, or for pointing out the obvious. If you want to discuss this matter further, please contact us for a public debate before the end of the semester so Geneseo students may participate as well, as we're sure they have much to say. Thank you.

-College Democrats

Letter to the Editor: Recent letters create division, not discussion

To the editor:

I am writing in response to both Lily Betjeman's and the College Republicans' letter to the editor in the March 29 issue of The Lamron.

I see a dangerous trend emerging in campus dialogue playing out on the pages of The Lamron. In an issue where the Village-wide peace vigil made the front page, it seems to me that The Lamron made a conscious effort to include the letters to the editor as the so-called conservative voice on the issues on campus.

My problem with the editors of The Lamron and to the College Republicans is that a peace vigil is automatically seen as a liberal practice and idea. What people do with that notion - in The Lamron's case to provide counter-arguments, and in the College Republicans case to dismiss a whole group of people based on political label - is stifling to campus-wide dialogue.

Repeatedly in their letter and in the title of the letter the College Republicans dismissively tie the label of liberal to the actions of students protesting against the war. Furthermore, Lily Betjeman's whole letter hinges on the notion of there being a monolithic war on conservative ideas in Geneseo's college campus.

One of the main objectives of Students for a Peaceable Solution in Iraq is to get an open dialogue going on campus about world events, one I would hope wouldn't be limited to partisan name-calling. Lily Betjeman's issues with partisan closed-mindedness is a real one, but one she contributes to when she reduces the dialogue to an us vs. them, conservative vs. liberal standoff. The Lamron, too, participates in such easy dualism.

How shocking is it that I, a so-called liberal, agree with some of the arguments put forth by a self-proclaimed conservative? In my experience a simple conversation with someone of opposing views can create a space for respect and understanding.

When Geneseo Free Speech Movement's banner was burned it was as much of an attack on "liberals" on this campus as a teacher throwing around curse words directed at republicans is an attack on "conservatives."

Why does a teacher feel she needs to throw around such curse words? Why do the College Republicans feel it is okay to throw around the word "liberal" so disparagingly? Why is it that people who have strong, loud opinions on the war, the economy and human rights are the minority on this campus and not the majority? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves if we are to really have an honest open politically active campus.

-Jordan Raymond

Letter to the Editor: Less time in Washington is a real asset for Obama

To the editor:

How can Editor in Chief Jacob Kriss write in his March 8 column about a political candidate from Illinois with limited experience in the National Government and not mention Abraham Lincoln? I can only imagine the column that would have been written in 1860 when Lincoln was on the campaign trail, because at the time Honest Abe only had two years of service in Washington D.C - two years less than Barak Obama will have under his belt by the time of the general election. How can you vilify Obama for taking advantage of his popularity before it has a chance to decline? If he doesn't run now, then when would be appropriate?

There is no benchmark for presidential candidates, and while that's kind of scary, that's no reason to deny a young up-and-comer his chance. If a candidate misses his opportunity to serve, he might spend too much time on the bench to the point where, like John McCain, one might be considered too old to serve.

But if four years isn't enough experience, how about six years of service? Because as long as we're drawing up arbitrary requirements for our candidates, six is the number of years John Edwards served in the Senate, yet his candidacy has not evoked the same outrage. If length was a requirement for office, Robert Byrd should be running against Ted Stevens in the general election, because the two of them combined have for over 80 years of service. If anything, a long tenure in office can come back to hurt a candidate as they build up an extensive voting record that contradicts itself and can be used against a candidate.

Obama's supporters are right to claim his lack of time in D.C. is a boon to his campaign considering four of our last five presidents were governors. However, you go on to say that this lack of experience will hurt him because he won't be able to pass his agenda, while at the same time, to kick off your column, you applaud his skills as a negotiator and announce that he is undoubtedly a good politician.

I also feel that it is unfair to compare Obama's possible presidency to that of the current president's tenure in office. That's like comparing apples to really really dumb apples. In the two party system, it isn't as simple as picking the best candidate, because only certain candidates have a chance to win. If I'm a vegan, anti-war person, Dennis Kucinich is my man, but he has as much chance of winning the election as Hillary Clinton has of winning a personality contest.

At a certain point in politics, the voters need to compromise, and if that means riding the Obama momentum to the White House, as a Democrat, I wouldn't be totally averse to that.

-David Lombardo

Letter to the Editor: Geneseo needs public forum on Iraq War

To the editor:

More than four years on, it is high time for vocal and local Iraq war proponents, e.g., Dr. T. Everett, Dr. H. Howe and Dr. M. Mitschow, to take responsibility for their support of President Bush's drive to war. Republicans claim to be the party of "personal responsibility," so it shouldn't be difficult for these war proponents to either reaffirm or renounce the arguments they made. I contend that these arguments were incorrect and have led to the worst suffering the people of Iraq have ever experienced and to the squandering of over 5,000 lives and limbs among a total 26,635 American casualties.

The main purpose of this letter is to encourage student groups to attempt to arrange a public forum where either reaffirmation or renunciation of past arguments and discussion of current policy choices can take place. I have tried to arrange such campus forums with Iraq war proponents in the past to no avail; perhaps student groups will have better luck. In addition to personal recollections, past arguments are archived to some extent in text and perhaps in video shot by GSTV and/or CIT.

-Dr. Anthony J. Macula

Associate Professor of

Mathematics

Letter to the Editor: Claim that Clarion refused to print Lowe's letter a mistake

To the editor:

Last week I sent a letter to you voicing my opinion in favor of the Lowe's project. Within that letter, I stated that I had sent several letters to the Lake and Valley Clarion that were not published. My letters were sent to the address noted in the Clarion's e-mail site as opinion@clarionmail.com. Upon sending those letters, I received no "bounceback" reply that they did not go through and did not receive any subsequent e-mail stating that I used an invalid e-mail address.

Thus, I made what I believe to be a reasonable assumption that the letters were received by the Clarion.

Apparently, my assumption was incorrect. Based on recent information that I have received, the Clarion denies receiving such letters. Therefore, I apologize to Mr. Corrin Strong and the Clarion for making what I thought was a reasonable assumption. My intent was not to harm Mr. Strong or his newspaper but rather to simply support the Lowe's project. My apologies.

-Greg Lamb

Geneseo students exhibit righteous morals

To the Editor:

Letters to editors generally are written to criticize or denounce what the letter writers perceive as the deplorable traits of our society. Inspired after I was the beneficiary of three random acts of kindness, this letter is instead written to commend the extraordinary good nature of Geneseo students.

Last Thursday, due to personal illness and a packed agenda, I was literally dragging my feet across campus. When my student Robert saw me, he went out of his way to help me carry bulky equipment up our famous steep walks and back to my office. Later in the day, Kerri brought me a cup of coffee because she noticed I had not been able to purchase the habitual cup and, feet in tow, I obviously needed it to sustain me before teaching two evening classes.

Certainly, because I am a professor, most cynics at this point would attribute the thoughtfulness of these students to their desire to ingratiate themselves with me-"to get a better grade," cynics would argue (alas, my students do know much better). However, as if intended to quell naysayer skeptics, my long-drawn day was topped by a truly anonymous act of kindness. As I was leaving Welles Hall about 8 p.m., weighed down by an assortment of school bags and no free hand to open the door, a young man rushed down the stairs to hold the door open for me. I thanked him, expecting him to exit behind me. Instead, he turned around and went back into Welles, making me realize he had only come down the steps to help me.

Students like Robert, Kerri and my Good Samaritan exemplify the fine morals and values of their generation; they also confirm, in my opinion, that Geneseo is a very special place-as special as our students.

-Rose McEwen

Associate Professor,

Department of Foreign

Languages and Literatures

NOW wasting their time on intramural scoring policy

To the editor:

I am writing in response to the "Geneseo NOW seeks input on intramural scoring policy" letter printed in the Feb. 15 edition. I believe it to be a joke that the Geneseo NOW organization is focusing on this out of all the problems here on campus.

Is changing the scoring policy in intramural sports going to really further women's rights? As a broomball staff member I see way too many broomball games. But in watching these games I see that the men pass the ball to the women more so that they can score the goals, as every team wants to win and get as many points as they can.

The 1:2 scoring ratio is not only a Geneseo thing, as it is a nationwide rule which promotes participation in intramurals, not inequality, and to think of it as that is uncalled for. The fact that you all have debated this is a joke. When you join the co-ed league, you join to play for fun and allowing for a female goal to count as double is more fun for everyone involved.

The 1:2 ratio does not imply that women are inferior to men in the sport of broomball as you suggest; rather, it promotes teamwork and passing and allows for more female participation within the game. If this is the hot-button issue pressing Geneseo NOW, I suggest they take a step back and look at the world and put this in perspective.

-Matt Brady

School of Business accommodated students affected by accounting program change

To the editor:

I am writing to correct errors and elaborate on the article which appeared in the Feb. 15 edition of The Lamron regarding the Advanced Financial Accounting course. I appreciate your reporting on a topic of interest to School of Business accounting majors and it is important to all of us in the School of Business that the information published be accurate.

The School of Business announced in the Spring of 2004 that Advanced Financial Accounting (Acct. 303) would no longer be offered at the undergraduate level, not "at the beginning of this semester" as reported in the article.

At this point, the School of Business repeatedly advised students who were interested in sitting for the CPA exam that they needed to take the Advanced Financial Accounting course. At the beginning of the Fall 2004 Semester, an e-mail was sent reminding all Juniors and Seniors that the undergraduate Advanced course would be offered for the last time in 2004.

In the Spring of 2005, after considerable review and analysis, based on the needs of our students, we decided to offer Acct. 303 one last time in Fall 2005. Juniors and seniors could have taken the undergraduate course at this point.

The Lamron article raised the issue of cross-listing the graduate level Advanced course so that it could be taken by undergraduates. We considered doing this, but ultimately decided against it because of regulations by our accrediting body (AACSB-International), the effect on a graduate class of a large number of undergraduates (probably outnumbering the graduate students), and curriculum issues in the MS in Accounting program, where we are working hard to create and sustain linkages between the various graduate courses.

Students are not being pressured to enroll in the Masters program, as was asserted by the students in the Lamron article. The School of Business has maintained our strong array of activities directed at supporting our accounting students in the recruitment process, after earning the BS or the MS. We have consistently presented information about both the MS in Accounting program as well as about preparing for the job search after only four years.

We have done this in an even-handed manner, taking the approach that each student must decide for themselves which path to take, after hearing the facts and a variety of viewpoints.

We have tried to make the St. John Fisher option as easy as possible for our students. As part of an inter-college agreement, students going to St. John Fisher do not pay additional tuition for this course. Also, we are allowing the Fisher course to transfer in as the equivalent to our Acct. 303, even though the course does not cover several of the topics which have been part of the Acct 303 curriculum, and to count for our required accounting elective. And we are waiving, on a case-by-case basis, the number of 300-level credits required to be completed at Geneseo. These are areas of flexibility within our control that we believe help our students in this situation.

-Mary Ellen Zuckerman

Dean, School of Business

Geneseo NOW seeks input on intramural scoring policy

To the editor:

I am a representative from the National Organization for Women (NOW) which is an organization devoted to equity in all areas including school, work and home. We recently learned about the scoring policy in various intramural leagues. For instance, in co-ed noncompetitive broomball, men are allotted one point for each goal scored while women are allotted two.

We were interested in why there was a difference based on gender in the scoring policy, so we decided to conduct a survey with the intramural captains. The survey included questions such as, "If there was a difference in policies for men and women, did you feel that this enhanced or detracted from the sport and why?" and "If these differences in policies for men and women were removed, do you think that in general women would be less likely to be active participants (not passed to as often, less playing time, etc)?".

We received mixed answers to these questions, particularly based on demographic. We had the participants self-identify themselves as male or female and by the league they participated in, whether it was competitive or noncompetitive.

A female competitive participant said, "Ideally, the active participants would be those who were good/talented. However, honestly, I think women would be less likely to actively participate." A male recreation participant stated, "[The different scoring] detracted. Some girls are very good and as many if not more than some guys."

Since our survey results were mixed, we were inconclusive about NOW's stance on the issue. We debated over the idea between equality and equality of opportunity. We decided that equality would be defined as equal policies for all genders, while equality of opportunity would adjust the policies to give women the opportunity to be equal to men.

We feared that by petitioning the policy to be changed that women may no longer be active participants in the co-ed league. However, we also felt that by opting to participate in a co-ed league, both men and women would understand that they would be playing with other genders and that there need not be a further distinction through scoring. Additionally, we felt that the 1:2 scoring ratio was an inappropriate proportion for men's ability to women's, as it implies that men are doubly better than women at the particular sport.

NOW has not taken a stance on whether or not the intramural scoring policy should be changed; we are still internally debating the issue. We encourage any feedback that faculty, staff, and students have by submitting a letter to The Lamron or e-mailing us at geneseonow@gmail.com

-Julie Nociolo

President

Geneseo NOW

Student criticizes "Incidental Amusements"

To the editor:

I am writing in response to Joe Kausch's column "Incidental Amusements" in the Feb. 8 edition of The Lamron. Has our society really digressed to the point where this nonsense is considered humor?

I've never thought this column was worth reading, but I would scan it anyway each week to see what vulgar, childish words and ideas the author could come up with.

This last week however, I found the article not only humorless, but tactless. I suppose the author somehow thought the line "...I don't want all of those amusing stories stomped out by the memory of some kid that probably ended up being a car accident statistic" would trigger all sorts of laughs.

Excuse me Joe, but how is that funny? I hope those voices in your head keep on guffawing at the idea of people you meet becoming car accident victims.

Normally I would just ignore the pathetic attempt at humor that is "Incidental Amusements" by Joe Kausch but I just had to let you at The Lamron know that the average reader of your paper has an IQ above 25.

-John H. Magee

Alumnus responds to student's anti-war statement

To the editor:

I am writing in response to Mr. Julian Fenn's comments about his best friend currently serving in Iraq in the Feb. 1 article entitled, "Geneseo students participate in national anti-war demonstration."

I appreciate Mr. Fenn's sense of civic duty in expressing his anti-war views, but disagree that we should pity his soldier friend. Fenn describes how his friend had to shoot a 12-year-old boy who was carrying a detonating device, a boy who was probably attempting to carry out a suicide bombing. In doing so, Fenn's friend probably saved the lives of countless other Iraqi civilians by performing this unfortunate and horrific duty.

This soldier shouldn't be pitied for having to do this though, he should be honored. It is the boy that should be pitied - pitied because there are criminals in Iraq who are willing to sacrifice a boy to terrorize fellow Iraqi civilians - criminal acts that occur on a daily basis that our courageous American soldiers are risking their lives to prevent.

Our soldiers do not want our pity, they want our respect, and that's what they deserve.

-Dave Rasmussen

Class of '88

Graffiti is an art

To the editor:

I'm writing in response to Andy Pareti's Jan. 25 column entitled "Graffiti is a crime, not an artistic movement." If Pareti's qualm with the art form is that it is illegal, then he needs to reconsider his life. Are things wrong simply because they're illegal? Graffiti is an art AND a crime, and part of what makes it so wonderful is that people like [graffiti artist] Banksy are able to make beautiful art, against the law, incredibly quickly. If he can't appreciate it, he's really just being narrow-minded.

A great deal of graffiti that takes place on what you deem "private property" covers up societal blemishes. For instance, I would argue that enormous billboards are insidious - that companies don't have the right to purchase my attention and detract from natural (or even man-made) scenery by telling me to buy their stuff.

On the other hand, when an artist has painted something beautiful over these blemishes, it makes me want to be a part of society again.

Graffiti artists have a standardly-accepted code of ethics. Nobody paints on individually-owned houses or cars. They mostly serve to beautify and diversify the otherwise mundane brick walls and atrocious advertisements of the city.

To blindly accept law as morality is to need to live more. Furthermore, that "While Al-Qaeda steals all of the headlines, a new kind of terrorism is spreading through the streets of America and the U.K." is the start of Pareti's article should be the first sign that he shouldn't be taken seriously as a journalist.

-Noah Dreiblatt

Sophomore