Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

As a member of the Alestle staff, I too have an opinion on the Yahoo! ads that have caused so much controversy.

Yes, the ads are distasteful and represent both men and women in negative ways. Yes, it is understandable that people are outraged with the marketing plan of Yahoo!. No, the ads are not obscene but I believe that if the Alestle had pulled the ads, unnecessary censorship would have occurred.

I am a firm believer in the First Amendment. As a journalism student, it is more important to me than any other piece of literature. And for every citizen of the United States, it should be important too.

The First Amendment is why we can publish a newspaper in the first place. It's also why we can criticize our government and anything else that happens to displease us (such as an advertisement). It's why activists can protest. It's why pornography can be produced. It's why books can be published. It's why we can practice any religion we want to. It's why I can write this letter to the editor. It's why we live the way we live.

My claim to the First Amendment is every bit as valid as Yahoo!'s. You can't snatch it away from anyone or any business, simply because something has upset you. That goes against free expression and diversity. Isn't diversity something SIUE prides itself on? Bending the rules of the First Amendment is unacceptable, in any situation. Once you bend them, it won't be long until another freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment will be on the chopping block.

If, of course, you don't agree, visit Lovejoy Library and do a little research on media law. Maybe even ask a media law instructor your questions. In fact, any professor in the mass communications department could answer your questions. Researching a topic before criticizing it is much better than lashing out publicly when you don't know what you're talking about.

It's about time the insults stop flying at the messenger. If you have a problem with the advertisement, tell Yahoo! about it.

The most recent complaint I've heard about is an e-mail sent to all faculty from speech communications professor Joe Munshaw. In this e-mail, Munshaw attacked the Alestle staff in an unprofessional way. He expressed his opinions to the rest of the faculty but did not share his criticisms with the Alestle staff. He had the nerve to let his peers know what he thought, but he didn't have the gumption to express his concerns where they might do the most good. Instead, he referred to the Alestle as "an irritating reminder of an educational trend often referred to as 'dumbing down.'" Since when is it acceptable for teachers to refer to students and their work as dumb?

Munshaw said, "The general quality of the paper outrages me." If he doesn't read the Alestle, then how can it outrage him? Maybe Munshaw should take a look at the work that goes into the Alestle every week before he makes such a bold statement. It occurred to me that Munshaw is here to teach students, not insult them. But since Munshaw admits to not even reading the Alestle in recent years, he probably wasn't aware that students produce the paper. Perhaps he doesn't understand that those students have full course loads and many have off-campus jobs. Perhaps he doesn't know that the staff changes every semester. Perhaps Munshaw didn't consider very carefully what he was typing in his e-mail.

I am not suggesting, I am demanding an apology from professor Munshaw. His rude and discouraging comments are unacceptable. The Alestle staff works very hard to produce this paper. If anyone has problems with our work, the editorial page is here to serve you. But sending offensive messages about students to the entire faculty is far from couth behavior and gives a poor image to our university community.

Lashing out at students isn't a good way to foster creativity. Food for thought.

Sheri McWhirter

Senior mass communications

Photography editor/Alestle

Dear Editor:

In regards to the Yahoo! Messenger ad, I think this issue is being blown out of proportion and viewed only from one side. Mr. Wallheimer suggested some alternative circumstances in which the instant message might have occurred, but they were obviously far-fetched. I would like to make a couple suggestions which are slightly more reasonable.

If you have seen the movie "Hollow Man" with Kevin Bacon, you will recall that Bacon's character was fond of watching his beautiful neighbor undress after work from his window. She would remove her shirt, walk around her apartment, then right as she was about to remove her bra, she closed the blinds. This seemed to occur on a nightly basis, which prompts me to wonder if it were not by chance. I'm sure that Bacon's character wasn't the only person who watched this peep show every night. If the woman were truly modest, she would have realized that anyone could be watching as she undressed every night, so she would have closed the blinds before undoing a single button. It's possible that she enjoyed the idea that someone was probably watching and lusting over her body. She may also have enjoyed cutting them off as the show was about to get better. It's cruel, but some women really enjoy playing the tease.

What I'm trying to say is, maybe the girl being talked about in the Yahoo! ad is like the woman in the movie. Perhaps the victim is not her, but the boys she is toying with.

Sandy Wilson

International Business sophomore

Dear Editor:

While trying to decide what to have for lunch last Wednesday, I had the chance to walk around Center Court during the lunch rush hour. I wasn't completely sure what I wanted to have that day so I went to Chick-Fil-A, Pizza Hut Express and Center Court while I tried to make a decision. As I was looking around, I had the chance to overhear several different conversations of both students and staff. After the things I heard while walking around the basement of the Morris University Center, I decided something needed to be said in defense of dining services.

Like many of the noon hour students looking for a quick lunch before they head back to class, I first started in the Taco Bell Express line. Everything seemed fine as people placed their orders, passed the time by getting their drinks and returned to the pick-up area to get their food. As the line to place an order got shorter and shorter, though, I noticed people asking questions and walking away instead of placing an order. I heard people asking how long it would be for an order to be ready and they were obviously not satisfied because they chose to walk to another area of Center Court. I went on to hear two more students say something about The Deli and Hot Stuff lines while I waited for my taco. In each case, things were said about the time students had to wait and the lines they had to stand in. I figured out that while some students are aware of the current situation with the university center and the improvements that will be made in a few years, most are not.

It's been estimated that between the hours of 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 75 percent of campus students (both commuter students and those students who live on campus) purchase food and beverage in the basement of the university center. As every student has hopefully noticed, there is simply not enough useful space to fulfill dining service needs at this time.

Dining services is far to blame for such small problems as the wait and long lines. Recruitment, hiring and training of new staff is a continuous process so the dining services customers are satisfied with their orders. The amount of work space available, however, simply isn't enough to handle the needs of the students at certain times. People have to realize that most of the dining service employees are students themselves and are doing the best they can with what they have to work. Physical changes to the layout and allocation of space have been made as a temporary fix to the problem, but we'll have to wait for the completion of university center renovations for the long-term solution.

After the proposed renovation completion date in 2003, the entire lower level of the university center will be adapted and expanded to handle the increasing size of the student body. The kitchen area itself will receive new floors, walls, ceilings, lighting and building services such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing. With these additions, the amount of efficient kitchen space will be increased and will accommodate the needs of both student workers and customers.

For the time being, students should realize that other, more subtle changes have been made to the dining services program. So far this semester, students have been using the "Napkin Board" to voice concerns and other issues with management. This has helped the lines of communication by letting students talk with management outside of a forum or interest group meeting. Other additions such as the Baker's Nook and the fruit table only compliment improvements to existing services such as the salad bar and the vegetarian menu.

I understand the complaints I heard while walking around Center Court that day. Students, however, have to understand that dining services has made and is still making improvements to better the program with the resources available.

Dane Kettwich

Building Services/Facilities Chair

University Center Board

Dear Editor:

Melinda Hawkins' Lifestyles feature in the Oct. 3 issue of the Alestle, "Tattoos leave their mark on SIUE students," was entertaining and informative. I have several tattoos - some of them almost unavoidably visible, unless I wear long sleeves and gloves! - and I had fun reading about the opinions and experiences of other members of our SIUE community who wear body art. I also thought Melinda did a good job of providing a sensible checklist for "safety considerations when choosing a tattoo artist."

I was dismayed, however, when I read and reflected on Melinda's opening remarks: "Despite the intolerance displayed by the SIUE Police recently, tattoos are hardly a new concept." I think that Melinda's intention in crafting her lead sentence might have been to express her disagreement with some of the positions expressed publicly by university officials last month when my son, Sean, was removed from the eligibility list for employment as an SIUE police officer because he has visible tattoos. As I recall, comments about this matter on behalf of the university were made to the media by F. Richard Harrison, the SIUE chief of police; by Kenneth R. Neher, the SIUE vice chancellor for administration; and by Keith Nichols, director of SIUE's office of public affairs. I am on record as disagreeing with the opinions expressed by these three individuals about this matter and I deeply regret the consequences of their decisions both for my son and for the integrity and public image of our campus community.

I think it is extremely important, however, to avoid protraying "the SIUE Police" as having an active role in this matter and as being intolerant of tattoos or the persons who are decorated with them. Some of the SIUE police officers have tattoos themselves, and, whether tattooed or not, I have never experienced anything resembling "intolerance" from any of them (including Chief Harrison). There is nothing to be gained in this situation from demonizing the SIUE police force, so let's not do it! I would hate to see any of our campus police officers stereotyped as being "intolerant" as a result of the fact that a decision was made not to offer a job to an applicant who had tattoos. As far as I am aware, very few members of the SIUE police force had any input into that decision, the majority of them were as surprised as I was and quite a few of them strongly disagree with it.

I thank Melinda Hawkins for keeping alive the dialogue about the meaning and perceptions of tattoos, and related issues such as freedom of expression and acceptance of diversity, by the members of our campus community. Let's remember, however, that SIUE Police are also members of that community. They play extremely important roles in ensuring our comfort and safety and they deserve our support and respect. I hope you will join me in making an effort to give them a smile, chat with them, show them your tattoos (if that seems appropriate), and most of all, thank them for their work.

Kevin McClearey

Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Research

Dear Editor:

I am amazed at the reactions to this Yahoo! hullabaloo. Unlike the previous responses, I really do not care about the advertisement that should have been taken in a light-hearted manner. More disturbing to me is the effort of people on this campus to correlate an advertisement that says, "Stoney - Get over here quick. She's about to take her top off," to "abuse," "sexual harassment," "assault and battery," "rape" and "hate groups." Give me a break. Their comparisons have blown this ad way out of proportion. If every guy who likes breasts is in some way involved with a hate group, then a lot of us are in trouble.

An alternative view of this ad is a woman is getting undressed in front of an open window and a guy takes the opportunity to look. Moral of the story - if a girl does not want strange people to see her naked, she should not get undressed in front of an open window. Because no matter how hard some liberals preach about a utopia where no one is ever looked at as a sexual object, it will never happen. Simply put, guys like breasts. We always have and we always will, and no amount of education can alter a basic instinct. For those of you who did not like the ad because it was tacky, I agree. But just because something is tacky does not mean it needs to be met with a unified moral crusade.

The saddest thing about this ad and the comments it caused is the focus it took away from other important things. On Tuesday, Oct. 3, the Alestle was filled with five letters to the editor about the Yahoo! ad, one editorial on whether a nonalcoholic beer advertisement is OK for sporting events and another article about the alcohol-free booze. Sound like something is missing? Well, in other and more minor news, Tuesday night was also the beginning of the presidential debates. Yet, the paper lacked any article or editorial about the Debate Commission's refusal to allow the Reform and Green parties representation. I find it sad that in a college newspaper, people, including a few professors, are ranting over a cheesy ad, as opposed to writing about issues that matter.

Justin Lombard

English and history major

Dear Editor:

Confusion has spread to epidemic proportions. That is, it has inside Mr. Wallheimer's brain. I think Chad Binge was quite accurate in his perception of the editorial response to the Yahoo! Instant Messenger ad.

That editorial was quite contradictory. And now with Mr. Wallheimer's response to the O'Doul's advertisements, contradiction has continued. He claims that the University has sunk to an all-time moral low by advertising a nonalcoholic beer. Yet, he does not think it is a moral low to use an advertisement that degrades women. I think, Mr. Wallheimer, that you need to get all your thoughts in a row before you write your editorials.

Allison Benoit