COMMENTARY

Stealing from your own is unacceptable

James Nix and Josh Brown

I returned to my suite in Winkler Residence Hall from Knoxville, Tenn., at 1 a.m. on Thursday to some very disturbing news. While I was gone, and while my suitemates were out eating, someone broke into our locked room and stole my roommate’s X-Box gaming system.

According to one of my suitemates, the intruder entered our suite within the 15-minute period he had left and three of my other suitemates returned.

Along with the console, three games and two controllers were also taken. Strangely, two controllers were left.

This came as a shock to me, as well as the rest of my suite.

The next day, we learned that we were not alone.

Last Monday, someone broke into the room two doors down and stole a Playstation 2 while the owner was in the shower. Also in the same suite, someone poured shampoo on a Playstation, ruining the system.

In still another incident, thieves stole a Sega Dreamcast, leaving the wires and controllers behind. Two laptop computers also have been reported missing in Winkler, all in the last couple of weeks.

My roommate put a sign on our door asking for any information regarding his stolen X-Box. Within 30 minutes of putting the sign up, it too was stolen.

Senior Garrett Groff, a Winkler resident, said he had a VCR stolen from his room.

Groff said he never locked his door last year, but now he even deadbolts his bedroom door at times.

“I’ve grown kind of paranoid with all the theft that has occurred,” he said.

These cowardly acts are unacceptable.

We live in a time where our country is not safe from terrorist attacks, and now we must sleep with one eye open in our own rooms at college.

We must take our exams knowing a thief may enter our rooms. This is unacceptable.

These thieves are not stealing to feed hungry families; they do not rob from the rich to give to the poor. They steal things others have worked hard for due to simple greed.

These thieves do not consider the full impact of their actions.
They think only of the immediate gain they receive but not the harm it causes others.

More than losing positions, our security has been raped. We no longer feel safe in our own homes.

We must check for missing items whenever we return from class.

There was an article in a recent issue of The Appalachian about the Appalachian community helping a needy family in New York.

In this article, Jenny Koehn, the community service coordinator for ACT, called the Appalachian community a family.

I agree fully with her statement and feel the thieves have betrayed their own family. They are no better than drug addicts who rob from their brothers and sisters.

To the cowardly thieves who are too weak or lazy to work for what they want: These heinous acts are unacceptable.

COMMENTARY

War, Affirmative Action dominated debate

Sean Oakley

Another semester is about to end – and what a semester it has been.
In more ways than one, this semester has challenged the integrity, values and morals of our generation.

Of course, the prevailing story has to be Sept. 11 and everything that followed. Though there was heated rhetoric between two factions with differing opinions (the anti-war and the pro-war), there was no Kent State. Though it might not have always seemed like it, the whole ordeal did show the toleration our generation has for differing opinions.

Here are two highlighted comments following Sept. 11:
The first was told Dr. Spiceland, who talked about this in one of his classes in the Department of Communication.

A reporter asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield earlier this year why the military couldn’t just announce where they were going to bomb, perhaps three days ahead of time, so all the civilians could leave. The reporter didn’t understand why he was being laughed at.

The other comment was about the military tribunals. A Republican representative, opposing the tribunals, stated that by straying from the due process of our Constitution, we were showing a lack of faith in our system. I could not agree with him more.

Yet, while the war took most of the focus, there were many other issues, just underneath the surface, that still raged in the minds of this generation. For instance, Affirmative Action was a hot topic this semester:

During a liquor-inspired Affirmative Action argument, I heard one person state that because he was white, he suffered continuous repression and prejudice. After several prods, he simply refused to admit minorities faced injustice in our country.

Of course, another member of the argument, a white student, reiterated over and over that he had felt what it was like to be “black.” When questioned how he could possibly feel that way, he became mad and acted as if no one understood him.

In no way am I trying to generalize about our generation. We are remarkably diverse. I am just offering some finer points.

A recent U.S. Army commercial keeps playing over and over in my head. You know this one — the one about how every generation has its heroes, and that one is no different.

But we are different – and I’m not saying this negatively.
Take technology for instance, from something as “simple” as digital television (which if you haven’t seen yet, you really have to) to the prospect of cloning.

Hopefully, unlike our parents’ generation, we will be able to clearly discern between two different issues.

We will be able to see cloning and abortion are two different topics. (Pro-cloning proponents often scream that people against cloning are also against abortion and choice.)

We are living in a much different world than our parents and grandparents did, one which older generations have a problem relating to. This becomes very apparent when six-year-olds are more proficient on computers than their parents. We are going to inherit a world of new technology and the ethical problems that accompany it.

While so many don’t have confidence in our generation, we have confidence in ourselves and that’s probably most important. We will be dealing with issues like the Internet and cloning, which have no precedents as guidelines.

The ability of our generation to tolerate opposing views will undoubtedly be our strongest asset.

And above all else, that is the one dominant theme that has sprouted during this past semester.

Words are just words, and even the most ignorant words are contributive.

Our Perspective ...

Equity Office reform
Office a needed entity at public university; We are concerned by faculty objections

The Faculty Senate recently held a rousing debate over the results of research done on the Equity Office at its Nov. 12 meeting.

The Equity Office is charged with “managing complaints about unfair treatment based on some form of discrimination and, then, working to resolve those issues,” as stated on the office’s Web site. The office also seeks to provide education about discrimination and to celebrate diversity.

Some senators felt the Equity Office had in previous incidents overstepped its bounds and abused its mission. The ad hoc committee chosen to conduct the research failed to effectively clarify the power and purpose of the Equity Office in the eyes of other senate members, and thus another committee has been set up to attempt to provide a more satisfactory resolution.

While we commend this system of review and believe it should continue, we see cause for concern over the Faculty Senate’s objections to an establishment such as the Equity Office.

The Equity Office, or any present or future investigator of crimes like work place harassment, should conduct itself with impartiality and fairness in the investigation and resolution of discrimination.

This role is the front line in defeating all forms of discrimination and should be taken seriously and tactfully. Offices like this are necessary due to the abuse and discrimination that can exist on our campus, and the protective role they play benefits faculty members, staff and students.

This office and the investigative work of this office, while kept in check and reviewed, should not be abused or inhibited.

As such, we find objections to investigation of complaints by some senate members disconcerting. As state-paid employees by our own tax-dollars, we want suspicion of wrongdoing investigated and the complaint verified or proven false and the accused vindicated.

We reserve the right to a fair and discrimination-free education just as staff members reserve the right to a workplace free of harassment.

Investigative power such as held by the Equity Office must be maintained in some fashion. Each member of the higher education community is subject to regulatory bodies that protect equality.

Perhaps in light of this, we should begin to take the word investigation in a serious yet more positive light. Essentially, if no crime is being committed, there should be no cause for concern.

Prevention of discrimination and harassment begins from within its source, with each one of us. However, we recognize the daily reality of discrimination and harassment, and as such, we recognize the daily need for a place to make verifiable complaints, even in anonymous form, and the daily need for a body with the power to investigate and resolve these complaints.

We commend the Equity Office for the work done to create fair and discrimination-free environments, but we suggest the careful and tactful use of investigative power.

We also commend Faculty Senate for the role senators play in keeping a watch over offices such as this, which may be easily abused.

But we deplore fear or dislike of investigations that protect all of our rights. We support the senate in its attempts to fine-tune and better the Equity Office. We also understand the complexity of this issue and the compromise that will be involved.

However, we seriously question the motivation behind this motion-in-progress and hope senators will strive to maintain a system of preserving equality that adequately benefits faculty, staff and students.

Journalistic carelessness

Pre-production headline inappropriate; We commend Morrow on selection

The fourth-page headline continued from front-page article “Morrow selected to carry Olympic torch” that appeared in the Nov. 29 edition of The Appalachian was completely inappropriate.

The pre-production headline on page four was not intended for publication and the entire staff of The Appalachian apologizes for this error. We assure the university community that as student-journalists, we will use this oversight as a learning tool to produce better newspapers every Tuesday and Thursday.

We congratulate Ms. Morrow on being selected to carry the Olympic
torch and are confident she will represent Appalachian State University in the highest regard.