Letters to the Editor
Campus Times
November 13, 1998
Dear Editor,
I have read many of your columns and I have got to admit that you definitely
seem to have a thing against guys ["Hello
... does anybody care?" Oct. 30]. So do the rest of us! Yes, people
notice your columns and people do care. Yet people are always going to find
something to say about the things that you write about. At least people
read the Campus Times just to read about you or just to read other articles.
I read the Campus Times every Friday. To me, it is like the Bible; it is
sacred and I take pride that ULV has a prestigious paper like the Campus
Times. Also being the journalism major that I am, I love to read the Campus
Times and I will write for the paper myself one day. Yes, Jennifer, people
do care!
Julia Carachure
Freshman
via Internet
Dear Editor,
The most interesting part of your column in today's Campus Times ["Hello... does anybody care?"
Oct. 30] is when you address Prop 3. I just wanted to let you in on where
I am coming from on the issue because in the small amount that you wrote,
you just don't get it (although most Americans don't either). You see, partisan
primaries are essential to our system of government simply because it is
the primary election and not the general election. The primary election
votes on who the party nominates to run for office. I don't understand what
would give a Democrat the right to vote to nominate who will represent the
Republicans in the general election.
Let's put this in practice. I am a devout Republican. But for the gubernatorial
primary, Dan Lungren was the only viable Republican candidate. Why should
I waste my vote on him, if he has the nomination sealed? I sent my vote
to Gray Davis because I wanted to make sure that Jane Harman and Al Chechi
did not receive the nomination from the Democratic party. I admit that this
is not fair to Harman and Chechi, but it is what I did because the system
allowed it. Why should I, someone who had never voted Democrat in his life,
choose who the Democrats nominate for governor?
Let's keep the primaries partisan... Yes on 3.
Anthony Loriso
Junior
via Internet
Dear Editor,
The article written by Jennifer Parsons, "People
deserve right to die," presented in the Campus Times [Oct. 23],
reveals her ideas on euthanasia. This issue has been controversial in both
legal and moral aspects. Many people believe that euthanasia is playing
the role of God. However, wouldn't the struggle to keep a person alive through
life support portray the act of God as well?
Many relatives face a crucial situation in which they have to decide
whether their loved one that is on life support should continue to live
or end suffering. For example, a close family member is involved in a horrendous
car accident and as a result the doctor informs you that there is no hope
for the victim. Now you are faced with the decision of whether or not you
should end their misery. It is a tough decision to make, but you should
consider the pain that the patient is going through. If the doctor tells
you that the patient has only a couple of days to live, then why not terminate
their life so that they can finally rest in harmony?
Euthanasia is considered the act of assisting an individual to die,
a form of homicide subject to legal sanctions. Even a passive withholding
of help to prevent death has frequently been severely punished. On the contrary,
euthanasia is not murder, it is the aid given to a person who is hopelessly
ill. In fact, it is an act done for mercy and also known as a human approach
to death.
It is morally your determination to believe if euthanasia is appropriate.
In reality, euthanasia is simply the practice of taking an individual's
life who is on the verge of death. Whether or not you agree, in mercy killing
there is a choice that is useful for those people who are diagnosed with
a terminal illness or given a couple of days of life.
Veronica Arvizu
Myrna Banales
Wendy Martinez
Freshmen
Dear Editor,
To the authors of "Teachers should
not abuse authority" [Oct. 16], I feel they were not being entirely
fair to instructors who become involved with their students.
We, as a society, have no right to interfere with the personal lives
of others. True, because a minor was involved, the teacher practiced maljudgment,
but the student was not unwilling. We must remember that we are all slaves
to our passions, regardless of what they may be.
We have not taken into consideration that perhaps Mr. Dangleis and his
student shared more than sexual relations. A deep emotional bond might have
developed; after all, students and teachers interact in a close environment.
In spending so much time with a student, is it not feasible that an instructor
could see that students as a person and not just a child? In mentoring his
student, Mr. Dangleis may have easily forgotten his position and acquired
feelings for the minor. A teacher is, first of all, a human and cannot just
shut off all his or her emotions.
I do not condone this behavior, especially when minors are involved,
but I only ask that we show a little empathy for this teacher and the countless
others that have been in similar situations. We usually do not hear about
the details of the relationship. We are unaware as to the motives of the
student who is a willing participant, if not instigator. Of course, because
the teacher is the older, more "mature" individual, we demand
that he practice good judgment. However, we must recognize that we have
all made mistakes and we should not be ostracized for them. These teachers
are not lecherous murderers and rapists; they are exactly like us and should
be given the benefit of the doubt.
Erica Bolanos
Freshman
Dear Editor,
In a recent issue of the Campus Times, I was disturbed by a particular
article, titled "Cheer provides spirit,
enthusiasm" [Oct. 16]. As a cheer squad member, I feel the newspaper
did not portray our team properly. The article and picture provided did
not represent the effort and commitment that the La Verne cheerleaders have.
The first thing to catch a reader's eye would be the picture. The picture
should have been of the entire squad, not just the mascots. It was upsetting,
especially since the squad had a special meeting that required us to dress
professionally for our picture that was to be in the newspaper. The picture
shown gives the impression that we cannot hold our arms straight, or be
serious about a stunt. When this squad practices, we work hard to have tight
movements and solid stunts.
I also feel that another quote should have been quoted in the larger
print. Enlarging the comparison of the new squad to previous years is insulting.
Eight of the 10 cheerleaders are freshmen, which means a whole new meaning
to La Verne cheer. The quote from Amber Rodriguez, "This is one of
the best squads I've seen yet," would have been the proper choice.
Also, the location of the tryouts was incorrect. The aerobics room was occupied
and we were forced to hold tryouts in the dorms. I feel this shows how determined
we were to get a squad together.
The cheer squad had a few obstacles to overcome to be where it is. I
feel the article could have presented that squad in a more appropriate light.
Now that the know we have a squad, they are asking, "Who is on the
squad?" Names printed in an article do not mean much, but when the
faces match the names, the spirit becomes known. Every person on the squad
has already shown effort and commitment by trying out, and by showing up
at practice every night when we prepared for Homecoming.
Jennifer A. Desy
Freshman
