Letters to the Editor

Government debt can be beneficial

Mr. Rose’s article on government borrowing in the Oct. 7 edition of The Breeze is completely incorrect in its dismissal of government borrowing as universally bad. Rose states, "a country is not a business and, therefore, has no way of recovering the cost of interest which is tied to loans." A country does, in fact, have a revenue source for recovering the cost of interest: Taxes. Wisely used government borrowing grows a country’s gross domestic product and increases the government’s tax revenue by more than the cost of the funds. For example, the Brazilian government might borrow money to improve the roads used by its soybean exporters. That improvement in roads might allow soybeans to be exported in greater quantity or at a greater profit, thus increasing the country’s tax revenue. Under the right circumstances, government borrowing should be viewed as a healthy and welcome phenomenon.

If Rose believes that the U.S. government’s current fiscal deficit is unwise, that is certainly a reasonable position. It is not, however, reasonable to argue that all government borrowing is unwise.

David Salpeter
JMU Alumus (’98)
MBA Candidate
NYU Stern School of Business

Opinion section embraces all views

In Matt Keenan’s letter on Oct. 7 in The Breeze, he states, "articles with a religious spin do not belong in the opinion section." I have to disagree; the opinion section precisely is the forum for discussion on exactly that — opinion. The fact that someone’s belief is religiously oriented doesn’t mean that it fails to meet the standard for publication. I am not a religious person and do not share many of the beliefs published in this section, but I can accept the fact that other people feel the way they do. The opinion section of any newspaper is, and should be, a forum for expression of ideas that might not have another avenue of reaching the general public. I can appreciate the fact that Keenan doesn’t agree with Goodman’s views — neither do I — but let me suggest to you that the next time you open up The Breeze to the opinion section, keep in mind that you may encounter beliefs that may excite you, that may offend you, but — most importantly — that will make you think.

Jonny Finity
senior, financial economics major

Variety important in opinion section

The First Amendment to the Constitution is central to our democratic society. This allows newspapers such as The Breeze to publish any article they choose — even if that article might offend someone. Brian Goodman’s article on Christianity and homosexuals seems to have done just that. However, that is the beauty of our society — we are able to read opinions of many people on every subject.

There are many countries where people are persecuted every day for having an opinion different from that of their government. If you were to ask these people, they would jump at the chance to be able to read about differences of beliefs and opinions. It scares me to think that there are people in our free and democratic society that would choose one opinion over many.

It not only is disturbing, but also inexcusable that a member of the JMU community would choose a newspaper that only provides one point of view. No one expects you to agree with everything you read. However, one should agree that every person has a right to have his or her opinion heard. I do not agree with Matt Keenan’s letter in the Thursday paper, but I respect his right to be able to have his opinion published. I would suggest that if you would rather live in a society that dictates what you are allowed to think, act and read you buy a one-way ticket out of America. Or — better yet — I’ll buy one for you.

Kristen Cunningham
senior, marketing major

Public religious statements acceptable

Matt Keenan says in the Oct. 7 edition of The Breeze that "articles with a religious spin do not belong in the opinion section [of The Breeze]." His argument that there are just too many opinions in this realm to print them all falls very flat.

Many Americans of native birth, advantaged through a lifetime of liberty of conscience, increasingly are bigoted in the ostensible interests of "tolerance." They even have constructed a so-called right to privacy in public places, demanding that any expression of religion be removed from all public life, all in the interests of preventing offense by people they see as religious zealots in the public venues. As blatantly offensive as this argument sounds, it is all too prevalent in America today, and it is growing in acceptability — a good reason for The Breeze to print it.

Nowhere in our Constitution or any of its amendments is there any such right mentioned. Under such restrictions, it would be inappropriate to quote the Declaration of Independence that "we are endowed by our Creator with … certain unalienable rights." Keenan appears not to want to hear such references to that Creator. Happily, the First Amendment clearly guarantees the freedom of the press and the free exercise of religion — including in the opinion section of The Breeze.

Secular bigotry against Christians in America today is no more acceptable than any other form of bigotry or discrimination — and it’s time Christians stand up for the rights of conscience.

Jeff White
Major MSc
asst. military science professor

Relationships need not be long-term

It always is pleasing to hear of a professor who has the influence to garner the respect of his or her students. It is this personal relationship that has been lost in many classrooms.

Geoffrey Morley-Mower proclaims, in his column in the Oct. 11 edition of The Breeze, it is imperative women find out the interest from her partner concerning the longevity of the relationship. He goes on to explain that it is important that women make the most of their youth and years of beauty. This is a troubling statement that is suggestive of a superficial and archaic argument about the value of women. It fails to consider other factors that play into the attractiveness of women. Many times, women of college age are too entangled in the ideology that they must be engaged before they graduate college. This is a dangerous thought.

College students need to embrace the opportunity to date a variety of people. One of the easiest ways to discover who you are is to find out who you are not. Sometimes there will be relationships people enter into simply for the delight of meeting someone new and sharing time together. These relationships may not always lead to the chime of wedding bells, but to discredit these relationships as pointless is an injustice. Men and women need the opportunity to find out who they are and to grow as people as a result of them.

Stephen Atwell
junior, psychology major

Column negatively stereotypes women

Geoffrey Morley-Mower opens an important subject in "Women’s high expectations cause heartbreak." However, his opinion seems rooted in negative gender stereotyping and male-bashing. Heartbreak really is a two-way street that has no gender boundaries.

All men and women are born with hearts open to — and yearning for — the lesson of love. Initially, we learn from our parents — both father and mother. Over time, we learn love from God and we learn that God is love.

Likewise, men and women both can be sexual without love. Learn the above lesson about love and sexual depredation is not an issue.

Chuck DeHart
JMU Alumus (‘89)
administrative faculty

Web site not accurate in evaluations

Students should know that what they see on ratemyprofessors.com may not reflect what shows up in student evaluations. The Web site can overrepresent a small number of especially angry students, compared to all students making evaluations.

The JMU economics program student evaluations use a 1-5 scale. A question for overall "quality" asks, "Evaluate this professor in comparison with all other professors taken," with higher numbers being better. An "easiness" question asks, "Compared to all other classes taken, evaluate the degree of challenge in this class," with the numbers inverse to ratemyprofessors.com — higher numbers meaning "more challenge."

Over the last four semesters, my student evaluations scores for lower level courses have been 3.5 on quality and 4.4 on challenge based on 358 students responding — equivalent to 1.6 on ratemyprofessors.com "easiness." In upper level classes, I have had 4.4 on quality and 4.6 on challenge based on 47 students responding — equivalent to 1.4 on ratemyprofessors.com "easiness." As of Oct. 6 on ratemyprofessors.com, my "quality" score was 2.6 and my "easiness" score was 1.9, based on 31 students reporting. Compared to the full sample, ratemyprofessors.com sharply understates my quality, but overstates my easiness.

I suggest that all official evaluation scores be made public. Ideas about confidentiality have become irrelevant since this Web site has become available and been publicized by The Breeze. It is better for students to have accurate data on professors rather than the distorted numbers that appear on ratemyprofessors.com due to small sample bias.

J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.
economics professor
Kirby L. Kramer, Jr.
business administration professor