YOUR VIEWS Letters to the Editor

Bill covers up real issues

The November 9 Technique printed a letter to the editor defending House Bill 154, or the cleverly named "Intellectual Diversity Act." In this letter, the author relies on a number of populist values: "driven by people at the grassroots level," "all about accountability," etc. to assert that this bill under consideration is necessary to secure the free exchange of ideas that lies at the heart of higher education. However, this bill would monitor and control what can and cannot be said in the classroom, in effect doing its best to subvert, not safeguard, the free exchange of ideas in public higher education.

In the United States, we have often recognized and criticized as corrupt and undemocratic the actions of foreign nations when their respective governments artificially influence their educational institutions. Aren't we guilty of those same offenses when we insist our own institutions of higher education are accountable only to partisan politics and no longer to truth? Don't we owe the taxpayers of this state a commitment to the discovery and production of new types of knowledge rather than a reinforcement of a view that breaks the world down into alienating binaries?

I reject the notion that we need government regulation of the frontiers of human thought; to abdicate any sort of fidelity to truth in favor of an artificially imposed commitment to the status-quo does a disservice to the public for whom this institution has been built.

Furthermore, proposed legislation such as HB 154, far from being "driven by people at the grassroots level," instead is a cynical attempt by many wealthy elites to divert concern and criticism away from the real issues impacting the general public with respect of higher education: affordability and access. Proponents of bills such as HB 154 are notorious for manufacturing a problem on campus where none exists; so instead of having a genuine public debate on how to make public higher education more affordable we are forced to waste time and intellectual energy with these non-issues.

If supporters of HB 154 were as committed to real diversity on campus, the real intellectual diversity that comes with interaction between peoples from vastly different socio-economic backgrounds, I daresay public higher education would be an institution more citizens could be proud of-a testimony to the values of equality that at the heart of any democracy, and not an institution that furthers the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Todd Reynolds

todd.reynolds@lcc.gatech.edu

LCC Postdoctoral Fellow

Parody issue betrays nature of joke writers

Before I comment on last week's "To Hell With Georgia" issue of the Technique, I want to make it clear that I dislike UGA as much as the rest of our school. Just like everyone else, I am tired of losing to Georgia Thanksgiving after Thanksgiving. Furthermore, I realize that Tech has higher academic standards than UGA, and that students in Athens can probably be drunk four nights a week and still graduate with a 3.5 GPA.

With that disclaimer, I am embarrassed to admit that last Tuesday's Technique issue confirmed many of the stereotypes that people have, not about the University of Georgia, but about Tech. In this publication, various Technique writers bash UGA students for drinking (page 5), for NOT reading (10), for listening to country music (15), and even for driving pickup trucks (cover). I understand that we often resort to making fun of UGA students for being intellectually inferior to us. However, articles such as "Reading may cause cancer" (10) do less for pointing out UGA students' lack of intelligence and do for more for making the world realize that we really might be the nerd school that they all say we are. If I were a UGA student, I would not feel insulted in the least if I were made fun of for "not reading."

And when did beer, country music, and pickup trucks become bad things? It's almost as if the Technique writers were attacking mainstream southern college culture. I would expect this type of article from an ignorant writer who thinks that everyone from the south is...well...having sex with animals and marrying siblings, as the "Dixie" article indicates (17). However, since over half of our student body is from the state of Georgia, I am surprised that our school newspaper finds southern culture a thing to ridicule.

I am not making the age-old mistake of taking a joke too seriously. Instead, I am pointing out that the nature of a joke often reveals much about the joker. Last week's Technique revealed that our writers resorted to jokes that were either self-deprecating (the reading jokes) or not specific to UGA (country music and drinking). I suggest that the writers think a little harder and write more articles like the Herschel Walker article (24), which was actually funny.

Keith Hearon

KHearon@gatech.edu

Third-year MSE

Frequent paper plate use should be encouraged

The Nov. 16 article, "Dining halls go tray-less," mentioned paper plates as a way to conserve water. However, all of the suggestions restricted the use of paper to certain conditions, such as the time of day or a trade of plates for trays. I see no reason why paper use must be tied to other events. It would be more complicated for the dining staff to use paper during a certain time of day and then switch to ceramic during another time. Furthermore, there is no need to give up plates for trays. If we save water by not washing trays, then we can save even more water by not washing plates and silverware.

I emphasize that paper must be used, not styrofoam. Paper is far more biodegradable than Styrofoam; therefore its use will not substantially hurt the environment in the long run. What's more, paper is not carcinogenic, unlike styrofoam.

Alex Yang

ayang7@gatech.edu

First-year MGT

Federal supremacy invalidates fee policies

In a letter titled, "Policies follow state law" (Nov. 9), Mitch Keller accuses Malhotra and Sklar of failing to understand the law regarding mandatory student activity fees and Tech's policy. Sadly, Keller represents a large majority of students who do not understand the Supreme Court's position on these issues.

Keller claims that the funding policy "compl[ies] with Georgia law and U.S. Supreme Court rulings." However, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have required public universities to distribute funds in a viewpoint neutral manner.

It is important to note that Tech's revised SAF policy is just as unconstitutional as the prior one, because prohibiting "proselytizing" is a clear example of viewpoint discrimination. Proselytizing isn't unique to religious groups. To proselytize means "to recruit or induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or party." Therefore, if SGA applied the policy fairly across the board, no student group would get funding. Can you imagine the devastating effects this would have on campus life?

Keller's assertion that students bring concerns to administrators is fine, but change is unlikely to occur when the Institute's agenda is the problem. Instead of attacking fellow students, why hasn't Keller expressed outrage at administrators violating the law and students being detrimentally affected?

Jessica Smith

jessicasmith24@gmail.com

Biology '05