Letters to the editor

Weekend double punching not economical

In the past three and a half years, I have attended JMU and the chief complaint (next to parking) that I have encountered is the no double punching on weekends policy. As Student Representative to the Board of Visitors, I finally had the chance to bring our double-punching plight before the Board. I told them we felt deceived that Dining Services refused to let us double punch on the weekends, and that it was obvious they were making some profit from unprovided services. I soon had a meeting lined up with the school administration and district manager of ARAMARK. However, instead of taking down "the man" in my seemingly fail-safe cry for justice, I was rather humbled.

I was enlightened that JMU is the only public university that allows double punches at all. This convenience actually slightly inflates our meal plan prices because of a smaller missed meal factor. Every dining service provider factors in missed meals and thus is able to keep students’ meal plans reasonably priced. Clete Myers, the director of Dining Services, explained to me that its seeming monopoly over JMU’s dining was actually closely monitored by the university and there are limitations in the profit they are allowed to make. On top of that, dining profits are split between the university and ARAMARK.

I have asked Dining Services to post their double-punch rationale online to increase student access and save future freshmen from enduring such great anguish.

Hunter Hanger
senior, business administration major
Student Representative to the
Board of Visitors
Questions, ideas or complaints that you would like to see brought before the Board can be e-mailed to hangerhd

‘LiveStrong’ parody distasteful

Lance Armstrong is considered by most to be a great champion and one thing that is not debatable is that he survived cancer. After his ordeal, he created the Lance Armstrong Foundation to fulfill four main goals— education, advocacy, public health and research. The foundation achieves these goals with fund-raising efforts, through corporate and private donations, the annual Ride for the Roses Weekend, and finally, via the sale of the yellow LiveStrong armbands. During the last few weeks, a fraternity in the College of Business has decided to parody the foundation by selling shirts to raise money that read "Madison" on the front and "PARTYSTRONG" on the back. I find this very distasteful and disrespectful to anyone who lives with cancer or has been affected it.

Parodying an organization whose intent is to provide individuals facing a possible terminal illness with options and information to help them live is not humorous. By selling or wearing the shirt, you are diluting the meaning of the foundation and what it stands for. However, I am missing one key argument on the fraternity’s behalf — 10 percent of the profits will be donated to a non-profit organization. I guess giving 10 percent of the profits to a cancer foundation makes parodying their illness acceptable.

Here is a challenge to the fraternity — sell the remaining shirts and give 100 percent of the proceeds to charity and take the loss. Then think of something more creative to sell that does not insult the cancer community.

David Crippen
sophomore, accounting major

Not all women dream of marriage

I was struck by the article "A marriage for the magazines" by Ashley McClelland on Nov. 11. It’s true — a lot of little girls do dream of weddings and it’s incredible that the couple won such a large sum of money for theirs; weddings are expensive these days. I’m happy for the couple. What I want to say is that not all girls just dream of a wedding (not that you were saying that, but it bothered me). Why do little boys play as policemen and soldiers, but girls act out weddings? I even saw a Halloween costume at Wal-mart called "pretty bride." As opposed to what? We tell our boys to be superheroes and our girls to get married. I wasn’t one of the ones on the playground having mock weddings or planning mine out. As a little girl, I wanted to be an astronaut or president or go to college at Yale. I wanted to help people and change the world. I still do.

Don’t get me wrong — I think weddings and marriage are fabulous. I hope to be married someday. But too often as women we think that marriage is everything and go "hunting" for guys, changing ourselves in the process to become what he wants and not what we were meant to be. Why? I’m more excited about being in love with someone and spending the rest of my life with him than actually planning the day we start that life together. But that’s just me.

Emily Daigneau
senior, communication studies major

‘Debate’ overlooks daughter’s plight

While reading the debate concerning Laura Rogers in the Nov. 15 issue, I was disappointed to find that none of the arguments mentioned the daughter as an important factor. The battering of a woman is wrong by all counts — there is no reason that should ever occur. Whether or not abuse justifies murder is not the point I am trying to make. Murder is an end of being, there is no argument there. However, when rape occurs, there is no end to being — often there is someone who, for the rest of their lives, will be emotionally impacted and the rape of a child is no different. When a child is raped, especially by a trusted figure, this can cripple them for the rest of their lives. In this case having a functioning relationship during a time when children begin to learn of relationships cannot happen. This is a crime that no law can ever heal — the man may go to prison, but the effect stays.

So, does the rape of a child justify murder? Put a personal spin on it when asking this. If you had a younger sibling, or you had a child and he or she was forcibly raped, would the murder be justifiable? Legally, rape and pedophilia are not punishable by life in prison. Where is the guarantee that when released, this person would not repeat his former crime?

God bless Laura Rogers for protecting her child, and bless Judge Hackner for recognizing that.

Kellan Hancock
Senior, theater and dance major

Bush receives no mandate

A mandate from voters would have been when Reagan was re-elected and he carried NY and Massachusetts, two of the most liberal states in the country. Considering President Bush won the electoral vote by 120,000 votes in Ohio, I would hardly say that validates Jonathan Kelly quoting Caesar in his column on Nov. 11.

Jordan Crotty
JMU Alumnus (‘04)

Bush must move to center

In "President receives mandate from nation," on Nov. 15, Jonathan Kelly argues that by receiving a slight majority of the vote, President Bush has a mandate to proceed with his conservative agenda.

This is absolutely absurd.

Kelly notes Bush received the largest number of popular votes in the history of the United States. With voter turnout slightly higher than the 2000 election, a polarized country, no strong third party candidate, and an increase in population, of course the president had the largest number of popular votes this land has ever seen. If one looks at the other side, Bush was also voted against more than any other candidate in the history of the United States.

Kelly also claims that since President Clinton only received 43 percent of the total vote in 1992 and was unofficially given a mandate by Time magazine has a mandate as president to carry out his ultra-conservative agenda. In 1992, Ross Perot took 20 percent of the vote, taking away any real chances at obtaining a majority of the popular vote. Even with this, Clinton received 6 percent more of the popular vote than George H.W. Bush. Also, it is fair to note that Clinton’s agenda was very moderate and the election was during peacetime.

Bush must go toward the middle if he wants to unite this country instead of further dividing the electorate for the next election. His mandate is a weak one at best, and he should strive to unite all of America.

Sharif Hannan
junior, political science major

Democrats need not change values

I became infuriated after reading Adam Sharp’s editorial in the Nov. 15 issue claiming the Democrats must become more conservative and must surrender some of their principles in order to win. He claimed that the fact people voted on "moral issues" makes it apparent Democrats will be unable to win future elections. The last thing Democrats should do is give up our beliefs in order to lure voters. We have beliefs that every American can relate to — we just didn’t articulate them well enough in this past election.

Democrats have moral and family values that they believe in, but instead of talking about our values, we only responded to the Republicans’ values. In order to win the next election we must talk about our values and ask that the Republicans address their plans to deal with societal problems. It is morally imperative to honor the environment and ensure that our children’s children have a clean place to live. It is a family value to ensure that children have access to education. It is moral value to believe that those less fortunate than us need our support. It is a moral value to believe that neighbors ought to love and respect one another, including our foreign neighbors. It is a family value to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.

Democrats should never give up their principles. How Democratic is that? What we need to do is articulate them in a fresh way.

Katherine Rose
senior, political science major
president, JMU College Democrats