Vandalism will not be tolerated

To The Editor:

I would like to begin this letter by stating how disappointed I am to have to write this letter. I live on Little Laurel Road and I am sure anyone who has ever been to one of the “Love Shack’s” parties knows exactly where I am referring. During the past year we have opened up our home for the enjoyment of good music, laughter and dancing. However, due to the incidents that occurred last Thursday Oct. 25, those times will occur no more. Although we have extended our hospitality to no end, there obviously is no respect for the people who dwell here, in what I hope is the minority of people who come to our house. At last week’s party, a member of my household’s car was severely vandalized in our own yard. This action is despicable and this action is not to be tolerated. If anyone has ANY information regarding the damage of a 1985 Volkswagen convertible, a reward will be given. I cannot express how enraged my entire household is about this situation. It is one thing that we have opened up our house which we have to clean every bottle which is broken, thrown on the ground, smashed against our walls, going through personal belongings, but to actually vandalize our property which we do not have the $1000 to repair is unforgivable. So thanks a lot whoever you are, there will NEVER be a party at our house for you to enjoy again.
Elayne Parrish
ASU Box 14728
Graduate Student

Human lives aren’t collateral damage

To The Editor:

I would like to point out a few things in response to Kristina Egger’s commentary, “Not Deprived, not defined: a ‘lost generation.’” As someone who is a part of the peace movement, I am sick and tired of reading and hearing other people say what I think and why I am doing what I am.
So, I would like to straighten some things out. I am speaking for myself, and do not claim to have the same thoughts or reasons as anyone else, although I do think there are a lot of people who share my feelings.
First of all, the commentary states that “with the exception of a cowardly display on Sanford Mall in late September, our campus has remained relatively quiet.” Actually, on Oct. 25 I joined over 250 people for a peace rally at the Jones House, and then a march that ended on Sanford Mall.
Miss Egger also states, “We have attempted to turn this war against terrorism into the Vietnam War and the two are not remotely the same.”
I do not think this war is like Vietnam. I am not protesting to be like my parents’ generation during that time. I am protesting because we are punishing a whole country for the work of a small group of individuals. The people who are suffering right now are civilians.
Does everyone realize that we have now been bombing for almost a month, and we still have no idea where Osama bin Laden is? I do not believe that human lives are collateral damage. I do not believe in responding to the terrorist attacks with terrorism. That is why I am protesting.
I just wanted to get that straight.
Sarah Hall
Sophomore
ASU Box 5107

Smaller groups deserve publicity

To The Editor:

Along with many other students, I too am skeptical of the recent activities surrounding this mysterious man I am challenged to agree with. Without even being aware of what is behind these posters, paintings and signs, I immediately assume this has some sort of religious affiliation.
My reasoning behind this is that no other independent organization, club or program, in my eyes, never has as much publicity as these mainstream religious organizations.
This is not due to the fact that other groups are not as dedicated or do not feel as strongly about their beliefs and causes. I feel smaller organizations are not given the same opportunities.
Furthermore, I doubt that the university would support such a show of beliefs, as strongly as they often do with the traditional Christian ministries.
I do not disrespect their beliefs or their right to practice freedom of speech. I disagree with their tactics. Why are bright yellow t-shirts and unclear slogans that entice one’s curiosity necessary to spread “the words?” And why is this method so widely accepted by our campus community where other groups are not taken as seriously?
Meggan Knodel
Senior
National Organization for
Women
mk34388@appstate.edu

Not all students
fit stereotype

To The Editor:

I felt it essential to offer a response to Kristina Egger’s Nov. 1 commentary entitled “Not Deprived, Not Defined: A ‘Lost Generation’.” I wish that the writer for The Winston Salem Journal had called The Watauga Democrat instead of her office.
The Democrat happened to notice that there was a march for world peace, that 150 local citizens and students took part in it, and that the entire march led into the heart of ASU’s campus itself. She may have benefited from seeing that the march was not comprised totally of wanna-be hippies who “do expensive drugs” and “fondle nature.”
Although I can appreciate her stereotypes and even chuckled at a few of them, I beg to differ with her claim that the only ASU students who wish for world peace are spoiled, ill-informed and trying to emulate their parents by re-creating scenarios surrounding the Vietnam War.
For what it’s worth, I am a 4.0 GPA student who also manages a restaurant full-time. I haven’t been to a concert in years, don’t even own a car, and abstain from both drinking and using drugs.
I am also totally financially independent from my parents, and have been so for over a decade. I can assure Miss Egger that I have endured hardships that she knows nothing of and undergone deprivations that she herself might not have.
I also marched for world peace, and advocate justice in an international court for an international crime, without the incessant bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, seven million of whom are already on the verge of starvation.
Dropping airplane meals in the middle of the world’s largest minefield is a prime example that the U.S. military may be just as “confused” and “lost” as Miss Egger claims that the advocates for peace and justice are.
I submit that to sit in resignation and call each other “ill-informed whiners” is not the proper answer for the complex world issues that our generation is faced with.
Sincerely,
Daniel Trent Dillon
ASU Box 5060
Senior

Diversity is dead at Appalachian

To The Editor:

Diversity is normally defined as that which has a variety or as the appreciation of multiple forms. Unfortunately, as the recent adoption of the “Falwell” resolutions by the Faculty Senate and Student Government Association Senate unequivocally prove, the concept of diversity is dead at Appalachian State University. It has been replaced by wrong-headed knee jerk reaction.
In the eyes of many elitists on this campus, one’s constitutionally guaranteed right to self-expression, especially if he or she is a conservative evangelical Christian, is irrelevant. One must either totally conform to the tenets of unrestricted “liberal thought policing” or be ostracized and legislated against.
As a proud member of the conservative evangelical Christian “minority,” I salute and happily join Rev. Falwell, my fellow students and the ASU faculty members who exercise the right to engage in free-thinking, conservative public self-expression instead of sheepishly kowtowing to the petty whims of political correctness.
Joseph Shannon Parsons
senior history major
jp39320@appstate.edu

Liberty decision a knee-jerk reaction

To The Editor:

Given the Faculty Senate’s recent resolution recommending the ending of [Appalachian State] University’s athletic association with Liberty University, it is clear to me that some of those who speak for diversity and tolerance actually mean “diversity and tolerance for some but not all.” Tolerance means tolerating ideas that we find offensive. As an evangelical Christian, I routinely encounter views on campus that to me are offensive. However, as an academic, I accepted long ago that I would be a part of the mix of ideas—that I would tolerate many things with which I disagree and that this same toleration would give me the right to disagree. Those who know me know that I do not accept the theological assumptions that the Rev. [Dr.] Jerry Falwell brought to the table in his comments immediately after the Sept. 11 tragedy. Even so, I strongly support his right to participate in the marketplace of ideas and share many of his concerns about the moral health of modern American society. Either a university is a place where people can disagree or it is not. I find the knee-jerk reaction to eliminate Liberty from the athletic schedule to be both wrong-headed and intolerant. There are those one this campus who favor diversity and the freedom to disagree but those who initiated and supported this resolution are not among them.
Sincerely,
James R. Goff, Jr.
Professor of History
goffjr@appstate.edu

Christian campaign negates own intent

To The Editor:

Though “I agree With Eric” has been a successful and effective marketing ploy, I disagree with the deceptive method used by Campus Crusade to proselytize.
Basically, this is entrapment. When asked about the yellow shirt with the curious words, a student would recite what seemed a rehearsed speech. Each “Ericist” would recite the same two or three lines that explained basic Christian ideas. I didn’t ask to hear about Christ, but I was told anyway.
This response still has not answered my question. Who is Eric and why does he have the authority to tell someone what to believe?
Also, the statement alone leaves nothing to interpretation. You either agree with Eric and his yellow-shirted zombies, or you don’t. You either go to heaven, or you go to hell.
Why not “I believe?” At least that would open up friendly dialogue. What about discussing ideas, rather than expecting us all to blindly follow a faceless prophet?
Some saving grace was a student I spoke with who was a part of the event. He was actually interested in what I believed and genuinely cared for my soul. We had a conversation.
Isn’t that what Christians should be doing, rather than attacking with propaganda from a large group?
If Christians were truly concerned with the shape and character of the human spirit as they preached, respecting diversity and individuality would be as important to them as it is to those who do not agree with Eric.
This public relations campaign simply negates it own intent.
M. Chad Wilson
Junior
appchadwyck@hotmail.com