Reader's Forum April 13, 2007

Why alternative?

What kind of 'alternative viewpoint' do people want at graduation?

Do you want a commencement speaker who doesn't congratulate students for their hard work or doesn't want us to succeed in our lives? Do you favor a viewpoint that hard work and effort and leadership will not benefit us in the future? Isn't that what commencement is for?

I suppose if a few malcontents want to hold their own ceremony, that's up to them. I hope that BYU doesn't sponsor or encourage this event.

The school should encourage us to be united, not divided. I understand people may oppose Dick Cheney politically; they have spoken and have made their point. Isn't it time to unite with the rest of the university and focus on the reason for commencement? Commencement is about the students. It was never a political statement until you made it one.

Take a rain check?

What's the deal with rainchecking classes? I will graduate in a couple of weeks. Throughout my years here at BYU, I have rainchecked multiple classes, and never had a class section added to accommodate a higher demand for the class.

This is especially awful when it comes to P.E. classes. Because I have enough credit hours and was able to register early on, I was lucky enough to get into advanced volleyball. Unfortunately I was one of only 36 in the entire school that got in. There is only one section taught this semester (as has been the case for the last few semesters). The registration page says, 'Many of these sections are full. You may raincheck a class by clicking on the R next to the section that you would like to raincheck. A raincheck notifies the university that there is demand for this course which may result in additional sections being added.'

My teacher told me that there were 130 people who rainchecked the class for this semester. Is that not enough to warrant an extra section? I also know that sufficient facilities were not the problem because I went to play volleyball on Tuesdays and Thursdays with people who couldn't get into the advanced class (at the exact same time that advanced volleyball was taught last semester). What must be done?

Many protest, few serve

I am quite disappointed in what I've observed recently. I was in class during all of the protest 'shenanigans' and didn't participate, but heard there were hundreds of people there voicing their opinions and thoughts. I understand freedom of speech, press, etc. is important, but a lot of times we make ourselves look very foolish, and please understand I am not pointing any fingers. I mention the specific example of the protests to show the considerable difference in numbers of two very different 'activities' involving two very different purposes.

The following day, I was walking to my job on campus and noticed a humanitarian aid project going on in the JFSB quad. I counted about 13 people at the tables giving of their time and talents to serve and help others feel better about themselves and the world they live in. I know I should involve myself more in service projects because I know the joy it gives to me in so many different ways and influences me to do more.

I look forward to the day the same enthusiasm, time and energy seen in the protesting is used to build up, serve and give love to others rather than tearing down, accusing, name-calling and voicing our disgust with other people, whomever that may be. May we all be more observant, more considerate and more willing to serve from this point forward.

Demands front-page apology

I am disappointed in The Daily Universe's choice to print the names and pictures of the students involved in the Parkway Crossing incident. Though they committed a crime, and the information was publicly available, it shows tabloid-esque ethical responsibility. Granted, you can't kick in people's doors when you're angry, but these students have spent the weekend in jail, paid $2,500 in bail, now face felony charges, not to mention suspension from the football team and the possibility of expulsion. That's quite a list; where does it end - obviously, not with The Daily Universe. I can only imagine how they feel now their most embarrassing moment has been plastered on the Universe's front page for all their peers to read.

What ever happened to kindness, understanding or mercy? We can't hope for these gifts from others if everyone decides not to give them out. Sometimes we make the mistake of projecting our ability to live right onto others; then, when others fall short we rain down upon them with all possible consequences. Some justify this by saying, 'I wouldn't have done that.' Our religion teaches against this.

I think a front-page apology is in order. Editors should tackle the serious question - do the readers need to know? The writers and journalists of The Daily Universe should be careful not to separate their own ethics from that of the newspaper. In reality you can't separate them, and to justify ridicule in this way is error.

'Malicious liberal rhetoric'

In the debate over Cheney's commencement visit, I find it ironic the two 'sides' of the debate are actually arguing different issues. One honestly feels Cheney is a questionable individual, while the other, rather than defending Cheney's reputation, instead attacks those who would dare demean the office of vice president, let alone implicitly criticize the brethren.

I'm still at a loss to figure out how, in extending this invitation, the Brethren were acting as prophet, seer or revelator. Furthermore, I can't help wondering how those who adopt this unabashedly biased and judgmental rhetoric of being 'pro-BYU' would feel if it were President Clinton who had been invited to speak.

Perhaps then they could understand the point those against Cheney make: that the mere holding of high office doesn't place a person beyond criticism. I feel it a pity, in fact, Clinton won't be addressing us: at least then we could have had something upon which to agree.

In short, though it is most certainly an honor the Vice President will speak to us - indeed, an event I look forward to - I still feel uneasy about the man who holds the position. Likewise, I'm also saddened those who would decry 'malicious liberal rhetoric' use the same devices for the same purpose of attacking those with whom they disagree, rather than engaging in genuine discussion.

Unrealistic expectation

In response to the letter criticizing women for wearing sweatshirts, what bothered me the most wasn't the debate over the sweatshirts, but the underlying attitude that somehow girls owe it to us guys, or even to their own good looks, to be constantly 'dressed up.' We talk about it as if they're responsible to look attractive for us - even at the supermarket. Come on, let's be reasonable - women at the supermarket are just regular shoppers, not display cases at the end of the aisle for us to gawk over.

In defense of girls wearing sweatshirts to school, is it possible the main reason they came to a university was to stretch their minds? And is it possible in their effort to grow intellectually, they've put more of their time and attention on their schoolwork rather than their looks? And isn't it blatantly obvious us guys are just as likely to shun the chic and trendy for the casual and comfortable? So why indict the women?

We've held expectations for women's appearance far too high for far too long. If they want to dress up, that's great; if they don't, that's great too. They're certainly not obliged to do it on our account. So instead of asking women to put in the extra effort to make themselves look nice so we can appreciate them, let's put in the extra effort ourselves to look beyond their clothes and just appreciate them for who they are, however they dress.

Knee Length Means Knee Length

A mini skirt is still a mini skirt even if you throw skin-tight leggings on underneath it. Same thing goes for booty shorts. I know it can be confusing, but I think that knee length really does mean knee length.

Unfit Message

As a student at BYU, I am enjoying the political diversity and discussions surrounding the controversial issue of Vice President Cheney. However, I worry about the message we are sending. By protesting Vice President Cheney this is our message: Thank you for agreeing to speak to our student body; however, we decline. As experienced and righteous college students we are in a position to judge your actions and character. We completely understand the reasons for invading Iraq, the limits of torture, your sins in the CIA leak, your connections to Halliburton and we have never uttered a cuss word - hence we can throw the first stone. You understand don't you? We stand on a higher moral ground than you do, thus you are not worthy to speak to us. While no court to date has convicted you of any of these crimes, we do. This is what we call righteous judgment, you managed to fool our board of trustees, but you cannot fool us. Thanks, but no thanks.

My mission president once told me we find what we are looking for in others. I am certain if we look for the evil in Cheney, we will find it. However, I wish BYU could be known as the university that looked for the good in others. My message is: Thank you, Cheney, for your service to our country, and I look forward to hearing you speak at commencement.

Label Personal Ads Appropriately

I didn't know that The Daily Universe had personal ads. Although I must admit that I long thought the ads should be an integral part of the newspaper. I mean, I met my wife here and I couldn't help but think I could've met her a little earlier if I put out an ad, you know: 'Wanted: female 5'5 Dark hair, hazel eyes, must be avid rock climber and musically talented. Like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain, Pretty too.'

Come on, a half-page article on a 'Modern-day Plato,' (April 10) where you include his height, interests and hair and eye color, isn't news. It's a personal ad. If you want to start doing personal ads that's fine, but please label them appropriately.

Girls should feel comfortable

I just wanted to respond to the letter 'Be presentable, ladies' (April 11) about the 'epidemic' of girls wearing sweatshirts on campus. I think it is ridiculous to assert a girl should have to primp herself every day to be attractive to young men or to be 'acceptable.' How many boys walk around this campus with a baseball cap on? Or basketball shorts? Women on this campus are working hard in school and other responsibilities, and we don't always have time to dress up in order to impress someone like the author.

A guy should actually appreciate a girl who feels comfortable in her own skin and doesn't have to put on a show. I like dressing up as much as the next girl, but I know my husband thinks I am just as beautiful when I wear a sweatshirt and jeans as when I am in a dress and heels. It is a double standard to require women to dress up for you, while you walk around looking like you just came out of the gym. I feel sorry for any girl who ends up with a young man like this, and has to put on makeup and a stylish outfit before a late night milk run.

What do you expect?

It is sad to read that after four years at BYU the only topic the author of 'Be presentable, ladies' (April 11) found worthy of responding to is the idea of women wearing sweatshirts. I can appreciate his attempt to not insult women by saying he doesn't expect us all to be Barbie dolls, but what does he expect?

Does he want all of us women to 'dress up' whenever we might possibly come under public eye? There are times (particularly late at night) when women just want to relax and be comfortable. Sweatshirts just happen to be comfortable. Or are men the only ones allowed that luxury? Am I the only woman who can take pride in my appearance even when wearing a sweatshirt?

Am I the only one that feels like I should be allowed to wear what I want and not feel the need to 'dress up' just in case there is some man that might be at the grocery store at midnight judging my appearance?

File sharing form of plagiarism

'File sharing not stealing' (April 11), is based on faulty logic. Theft can still occur although the owner still has the original item in his or her possession. It is not theft of an object, but theft of potential profits, recognition or other benefits. This is the same principle as plagiarism: The original author still has it, so why does it matter if I copied it? That's why it's called plagiarism and not stealing someone else's ideas, right?

Identity theft is the same - you've still got your identity; someone else is just using it as well. Piracy, plagiarism and identity theft are all forms of stealing by principle, if not by name. File sharing is synonymous with piracy when the files being shared are protected under intellectual property rights.

Downloading singles

A couple of thoughts on the file sharing debate. First of all, studies show that file sharing has no statistically significant effect on record sales. (A quick search on Google Scholar will verify this.)

Recently, a Supreme Court ruling included statements that at the highest level, everyone knows that no money has been proven lost to the RIAA as a result of file sharing. (See MGM v. Grokster, 2005.) So when the RIAA makes claims to have 'lost' money due to file sharing, it's a lie, no question about it.

Second, the ethics of file sharing are noteworthy, given the Honor Code we all signed and by which we stand. I personally feel when the record labels release music to the radio, they have pushed it out there as an advertisement to sell the artist's concerts, albums and image. They can't charge me for an advertisement. So I should pay money for the privilege of viewing a billboard? They put the music on open air waves for the public to consume. Therefore, I have no ethical problem with downloading singles I've heard on the radio. Downloading the whole album is a different matter.

Event deserved better coverage

I was particularly interested in reading the article on the Cheney/War in Iraq panel discussion (April 9). I attended and found it to be an enlightening discussion, so I was excited to go over each of the panelist's remarks and ideas in The Daily Universe.

However, I was disappointed to see the article was completely void of any coverage on professor Ralph Hancock, the panelist who voiced the most positive comments about the war in Iraq. Upon further investigation, I see there was a very brief comment about his remarks online at NewsNet.byu.edu that appears to have been left out of the printed paper.

Even if this comment had been included, it is a poor summary (only one sentence long) when compared with the other panelists' detailed and lengthy summaries, including direct quotes from the panelists. The purpose of this panel was to help the BYU community hear different viewpoints and make informed decisions on political issues. Providing only limited coverage of Hancock's comment doesn't help us to do that.