 |
|
| Staff salaries not faculty’s
intention |
Andrew Koch
Associate Professor
Political Science/ Criminal Justice
kocham@appstate.edu |
To
the Editor:
Your recent editorial on staff salaries characterized
the faculty as selfish hypocrites, willing to dip into the tuition
pool for their own aggrandizement, but unwilling to extend the same
rights of “tuition booty” to the staff.
I have been on the Faculty Senate for six years and I was present
when the matter of tuition increases for both faculty and staff
salaries were discussed. Your editorial correctly noted that staff
members are governed by the State Personnel Act, but you failed
to appreciate exactly what that means.
The motion that came to the Senate from the administration regarding
the staff proposed that ASU would circumvent the state’s salary
structure for all state employees governed by the Act, adjusting
salaries of staff beyond the statutory limits set by the state.
This was a well-intentioned motion on the part of the administration,
but most of us in the Faculty Senate believed the proposal was illegal.
The motion was tabled, never rejected, in order to gather more information
about the proposal’s legality and to ask for more information
from the administration about how the money was to be allocated.
Faculty salaries are not governed by the same guidelines and are,
therefore, able to be adjusted using tuition money. Should tuition
money but used for faculty salaries? That is an area of some disagreement,
even among faculty members.
However, what cannot be disputed is that the faculty salaries at
ASU are not competitive, particularly when the paltry benefit package
is included in the mix. We are having trouble attracting and keeping
the best faculty. Faculty positions go unfilled because the top
candidates refuse to come for the salaries being offered. Students
need to decide whether they want the cheapest degree or the best
education.
That takes us to the real problem. The plight of the staff and the
faculty are not a result of the one or the other being better able
to “exploit” the students. The current crisis across the
state’s educational institutions is the result of a myopic
(and largely incompetent) legislature that is more worried about
protecting hog farmers ability to pollute than they are about providing
for your futures. Millions of dollars are being cut from ASU”s
budget. Tens of millions are being cut from the UNC system.
The Appalachian should aim its disgust
at the proper target. This is not a matter of the staff versus the
faculty.
The Appalachian should be telling you
to inform your parents of the situation, and for all of you to vote
these short-sighted miscreants out of office in the upcoming election.
I believe the faculty will support the creation of some voluntary
fund that can go to supporting staff. But no one should be under
the illusion that this can fix the larger issue of providing adequate
salaries for the staff. That rests in the hands of the legislature.
|
 |
| War is not the needed answer |
Matt Schroeder
Graduate student
ASU Box 16694
|
To
the Editor:
In between the rambling and vapid musings of Hugh
Kellenberger (“Is a War With Iraq the Real Issue at Present?”
Oct. 8), one detects a distressing trend. First, he fails to recognize
the almost complete lack of evidence for any Iraqi weapons. Those
that used to exist were donated or funded by America to support
Iraq in its war against Iran, and the vast majority were destroyed
by weapons inspectors.
Second, Mr. Kellenberger seems not to care about this, approving
of the administration’s jealous guarding of its so-called “bulletproof”
evidence. This separation between the American government and the
citizens it purports to serve is deadly to the spirit of democracy,
individualism andfreedom.
Finally, and most disturbingly, Mr. Kellenberger treats freedom
as something to be doled out by the government like tax rebates
to oil companies: “this country affords the rights to do a
great amount of things.” To the contrary, our liberties are
our own, or at least they were before our congressional representatives
sacrificed them to the Patriot Act.
Peace and security will not come through war
in this case, and those who say it will are naive or manipulative.
Rather, they will arrive only when we proclaim with words and demonstrate
with actions that deliberate death has no place in this world, not
in Iraq, and not in America. Otherwise, guilty government officials
everywhere will continue to pass off their crimes onto their civilians.
|
|
| Looks not all that matters in music |
Katie
Berry
Freshman
ASU BOX 18441 |
To the Editor:
I always
thought the only genre of music where looks mattered was modern
pop. Kevin DeLury (“Rockers of the past: Retire your aging
posts,” Oct. 10) seemed to think that rock ‘n roll stars
had to be attractive and young to be rock stars. But he’s wrong;
think about poor Bob Dylan, if looks really mattered, he wouldn’t
have ever had a career.
I also wanted to claw my eyes out when I saw shirtless Keith Richards.
Keith Richards has never been an attractive man. He isn’t the
best Rolling Stone, because of his stunning physical features. I
like him, because he is an excellent musician. Don’t get me
wrong, there’s nothing wrong with a rock star to be good looking.
I have a poster of Jim Morrison in my room, because I love his music
and he just happens to be dead sexy (bad pun).
During the sixties and seventies, musicians didn’t get by on
only good looks. The aforementioned stars would never win a beauty
contest.
Their music is still around today, not because they were pretty
faces, but because the music is excellent. Thirty years from now,
we won’t remember the handsome Backstreet Boys and pretty Britney
Spears, because their music isn’t timeless. I would imagine
that people will still be singing Rolling Stones songs, because
the rock ‘n roll god don’t care what you look like; talent,
despite the age, is still talent.
|
|
 |
 |
