Students of SMU,
For those of you who read yesterday’s article “TaskForce to Examine Special Interest Seats,” I want to clarifythe purpose of the task force to the student body. Mr. Banesindicated, “one of the task force’s main concerns willbe the four special interest Senate seats.”
This is rather one of the task force’s concentrations, nottheir main focus. The main focus is to make sure that StudentSenate is best representing the students of SMU.
It asks, how should ALL student senators be selected to servewithin Student Senate?
By studying our election code, representation model and those ofour peer and benchmark institutions, we hope to improve how wellyou feel you are represented by your peers.
Nothing has been set in stone. For those of you interestedin more about the task force, I strongly urge you to read theMembership Task Force Outline on the Student Senate Web site,studentsenate.smu.edu.
Chip Hiemenz
Student Body President
‘Stereotypes’ proves liberalbias
To the Editor:
I found Ariel Hammond’s article “Stereotypes proveto be true” to be totally inappropriate. The article issimply Hammond using her platform to vent her liberal frustrationafter George W. Bush was re-elected.
The article starts with criticizing SMU students for their aboveaverage wealth. Second, it complains that another survey found that39 percent of SMU students claimed to be “far right” or”conservative.”
Next, it insults the clothes and style of those wealthy,conservative students. Fourth, it attacks the people themselves byclaiming that they “conform to each other, and instead ofbroadening their horizons, they narrow them down.”
And lastly, Hammond takes her time to berate the Greek system.How are these four topics related? They represent conservatism.
Are you telling me that because 39 percent of SMU students alignthemselves as “far right” or”conservative,” they are narrowing their horizons? Oris it because they dress alike?
Or is it because they are in a fraternity? Is it because theyare ignorant as Professor Richard Hawkins suggests?
He says, “There’s lots of ignorance that has to berolled back by the faculty. There are lots of attempts by facultyto shed some liberal light into this conservativebastion.”
In this institution of higher education, how can a professorjustify his attempts to inculcate his own liberal beliefs into hisstudents?
If conservatism is ignorant, as Dr. Hawkins suggests, why was aconservative elected president in 2000?
Why, in the off-election of 2002, was a conservative majorityelected in the House and Senate?
Why was that same majority extended in this election?
Why was the Senate Minority leader deposed for the first time infifty years?
Why was President George W. Bush re-elected as aconservative?
Is it because 51 percent of the country is ignorant?
Perhaps is it your own ignorance that shows through byattempting to indoctrinate liberal ideas into students instead ofstriving to educate them to make their own decisions.
How can you, Ms. Hammond, write an article that blasts theconservative base at SMU for being narrow-minded and discriminatorywhen you are, in fact, being narrow-minded and discriminatoryagainst anyone that is not a liberal?
Face it, liberals, you are in the minority.
Jason Graham
Sophomore business major
Debate teaches life lessons
To the Editor:
My name is Audrey Mink, and I am a first-year law student atBoalt Hall in Berkeley, California. I spent my undergraduatecareer at California State University, Long Beach where Iparticipated in both speech and debate. It is myunderstanding that SMU is considering eliminating its Debate andForensics Society, a fact that concerns me greatly.
Before I explain to you my concern, I am sure you are wonderingwhy you should be listening to me. I have never attended yourschool and have actually never been on your campus. But Ishare a common bond with those students who do go to yourschool that want to continue participating in speech anddebate. I know that the other activities I participated in asan undergraduate paled in comparison to forensics in how much Ilearned. I had a very successful career, winning 6 nationaltitles in debate and individual events during my 4 years at LongBeach. More important to me than those trophies, however, arethe lessons the activity taught me.
I became a much better student through speech and debate. I was able to more carefully process information and analyzearguments. I became more articulate, and was more of an assetto my class discussions. I learned to see both sides of anissue and weigh alternatives. I became more confident, moreenthusiastic and more concerned about social and political issuesin the world around me. I know that my grades and LSAT scorethat got me into Berkeley were due in large part to the lessons Ilearned in forensics.
In addition, the lessons I learned from meeting students andcoaches from around the country are invaluable. I have a moreprofound respect for diverse viewpoints and personalities than Iever did before. I still count among my best friends,advisors and resources people I met in the forensics community.
I realize that your school, like schools across the country,faces difficult challenges with its budget. In California, wetoo are facing budget cutbacks and decisions. Let me justencourage you to prioritize the incredibly valuable andintellectually stimulating activity that is speech anddebate. I am a better person because of my involvement in theactivity, and I sincerely hope that the SMU students get the sameopportunity I was so fortunately given.
Audrey Mink
Diverse paths are a necessarystep
To the Editor:
Though usually a quiet, moderately opinioned student, I foundmyself compelled to write in response to a certain opinion columnin Tuesday’s edition of The Daily Campus. Reading anysource of media these days requires one to take any informationwith a grain of salt. This is my usual strategy. However, I wasblown away by the generalizations the author made about Democratsand liberals. What began as a non-gloating opinion column (thoughthe simple statement of such is gloating enough for me) turned intothe blatant suggestion that we flip our platform upside down andassign ourselves some Republican-esque ideas just so that ourcandidate can be elected. Excuse me, but when did the UnitedStates’ government become a one-party system? Last I checked,it was healthy for a large body of people to have more than oneopinion about everything. Admittedly, President Bush was reelectedbecause of a large number of Americans with conservative valuesmade their way to the polls this year.
This fact alone does not justify the falsifying of aparty’s beliefs just to get their candidate elected. Frankly,I would have to wonder about morality of our party system if we didresort to this course of action in order to win an election.Republicans accuse Kerry of “flip-flopping” overissues, but I don’t see how changing stance on issues likegay-marriage and abortion rights will help to remedy this problem.If anything, changing opinions about serious issues like thesesimply creates a second Republican candidate slapped with theDemocratic logo. We need a minority representative for that littleless than half of the country who didn’t vote for PresidentBush. Making these voices heard is the only thing that advocates aforward-thinking modernity and acceptance, gay-marriage or nogay-marriage.
And that conservative majority? Perhaps we need to be reminded
that most of the religious beliefs that form the basis forconservative values were themselves part of that same minorityvoice at one time. It is only because that minority held steadfastto its values that we have many of the traditions and customs we dotoday. The path that we are taking is not a self-destructive onebut a necessary one. It provides a necessary preservation of thediversity of the American people, and a necessary fork in theall-too-straight road to conformity.
Alison Osburn
Sophomore English major
