American Indian culture involves more than genocide\nI am responding to Jonathan Rossing's column berating American-Indian student groups and the Mathers Museum for a children's event that taught about American-Indian stereotypes and realities ("Deeper diversity," Dec. 7, 2006).\nRossing did not attend our event but relied on an IDS article that omitted many things we said and, due to the demands of the format, contextually isolated others. Nonetheless, despite not attending or talking to anyone who did, Rossing confidently declares, "Just a guess, but I bet the ... program made no mention of arguably the worst genocide in world history, when European settlers quickly destroyed the population of native dwellers." Even as he chastises us for not bringing genocide to schoolchildren, Rossing views our communities as existing only within the framework that interests him -- the framework of genocide, which he wrongfully believes "destroyed" us -- rather than as living peoples who have worth outside history, and who, dare I say it, have as much right to enjoy life as others.\nMr. Rossing, I teach my students about genocide every class. American Indians live the results of genocide every day. And indeed we talk about it and the misconceptions that enabled it. But it does not define us. I hope you can recognize the irony of a non-Native enlightening us about our history. (And I don't agree that it was the "worst genocide" -- comparing degree of genocide is perverse, not to mention pointless.)\nThe Native American Graduate Student Association and the American Indian Student Association organize children's events. We also offer events for adults, including annual film and lecture series. We advocate for IUB to better support American-Indian students. Just helping children recognize that we didn't disappear is significant. No one, adult or child, cares about people viewed as ghosts or monsters. \nWhen you're willing to get off your high horse and labor for "deeper diversity," or to speak to American Indians before you tell us what we don't say, let us know. Meanwhile, we've got work to do -- the work of survival and creating a strong future for our communities. We are more than the past or present. We do not exist to enrich your sense of guilt. We are, as Dennis Lamenti said, living in the world.\nRebecca Riall\nDoctoral student, anthropology\nLaw student
IDS online focus should be commended\nAs a regular reader of the IDS for the past 10 years, I have noticed that recently, priority has been placed on the online edition. In a world that is increasingly becoming more computerized, this seems to make sense. I applaud the IDS for this move because I have noticed the better writers are given online status whereas other, more insipid writers are relegated to the paper edition, being denied the distinction of existing "exclusively online." One writer with such a distinction that I have noticed this past semester is Abram Hess, the author of "Journalistic Progress Goes 'Boink!'"\nComparing his work to that of another columnist, Mr. Colin Dugdale, brought to mind a scene from "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles," starring Steve Martin and the late John Candy. The two men are engaged in discourse with each other, and Neal (Martin) is chastising Del (Candy) for his lack of substance in conversation, saying, "And you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea -- have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!"\nThe same rings true, as I have observed, for Mr. Dugdale -- when writing a column, have a point!\nSpeaking of points, back to mine. I commend the IDS for its dedication to staying at the head of its trade by establishing as a priority the online edition, placing writers of higher caliber online and reserving the more archaic paper edition for the inane.\nJames E. Hogue\nStudent
Business students among hardest workers\nIn response to the Nov. 14, 2006, column by Robbie Calderon and Zach Vonnegut, titled "Bowing to Kelley":\nYour column implied the following: business classes are a waste of time, students aren't well-rounded and classes aren't that difficult. \nSince I actually am a Kelley student, I believe I have more knowledge on this subject than the authors of the column, who are not. \nI have no idea where you got the notion that we take "frivolous" classes. Although you casually dismiss the school's worldwide reputation and ranking as the fourth best public business school in the country, most people would agree there is a reason for this. Business Week disagrees with your accusation that some business courses are "a complete waste of time." In fact, they commented in their April 28, 2006 issue that the Kelley School's "real-world curriculum ... catapults the school into the Top Ten." We take classes that are practical and valuable to anyone.\nAnd business students aren't well-rounded? You forgot to mention there's a 62-hour minimum requirement for general education courses for Kelley students. That's a lot of room for non-business courses. I personally have taken advanced courses in psychology, sociology, politics and philosophy, foreign language and religion. Additionally, there is an international requirement that forces students to either take several courses in an foreign area of study, such as African or Near Eastern studies, or study abroad. I spent a semester in Rome, which allowed me to branch out and become a much better-rounded person than many.\nThe assertion that business students do not take classes that are very difficult is humorous and would be hard to make if you have not taken the classes. You may have friends who have done so, but excuse me for pointing out that this is not the best source from which to make first-hand judgments about the rigor of the program. Do you really think the I-Core case project, which stretches one to the limits of completing a 200-page case study in 10 days, worth 25 percent of your grade in all four classes, is no big deal? \nI would think twice before demeaning the prestige that Kelley students have worked so hard to earn.\nAshley Gillenwater\nSenior
'Smut columnist' wrong on human sexuality issues\nSeveral months ago when I read Colin Dugdale's first column of the fall semester ("Smut, dirty feet and 'Hoe Carnival': Welcome to Dugdale", Aug. 31, 2006), in which he announced that he is "a smut journalist," "incredibly ignorant" and "too freakin' lazy" to write about anything serious. I did not believe that the Opinion editors, whose columns I have read for years, would continue to publish drivel of the sort I was currently reading.\nI was wrong. Every week this semester we have had our sensibilities assaulted by Dugdale's vile writings, and it is an embarrassment that the IDS continues to allow him to be published. \nHis last column ("The white flag," Dec. 7, 2006), like most, was four-fifths sexual entertainment and one-fifth argument. In the one-fifth of it actually relevant to a reader of the Opinion page, he argues that the conflict between heterosexuals and homosexuals about the nature of human sexuality is relatively unimportant. He suggests that we should "begin fighting together against causes that actually matter: the war in Iraq, the fight against AIDS, the elimination of poverty, the battle against international terrorism." \nUnfortunately, Dugdale is sadly mistaken about the importance of human sexuality, as a simple reflection on the social unrest of the last 50 years quickly teaches us. But regardless, Dugdale, how would you suggest we stop the spread of AIDS without pointing out the undisputed facts that sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are its chief means of spreading? Or how can we reduce poverty in the United States without teaching men to be men and get back in their homes? Connect the dots, man. Sexual license comes at a cost, as do "progressive" sexual norms. It is, in fact, the rejection of millennia of social and legal norms about human sexuality that has exacerbated the very problems you suggest we address. Of course let's join together in fighting terrorists, but let's also join in returning to ethical sexual practices. \nDavid Talcott\nGraduate student
IDS columnist buys Spears' toxic waste, shows lack of tact\nIn response to Joanna Borns' "Mad props to Britney," Jan. 8: \nThe column praising Britney Spears was tactless and distasteful. She was voted worst celebrity role model for a reason. She beat out Paris Hilton simply because the editors of senseless celebrity gossip magazines like In Touch needed to write about someone else for a change. However, I am not sure Spears is as inane, spoiled and hollow as Hilton.\nIf people like Joanna Borns stopped writing about the lives of celebrities then people wouldn't care whether Spears knows how to work a kids' car seat. Responsibility for "tarnishing the name of a beloved, revolutionary icon" should not be pinned on the public, but rather Spears herself. She is a grown woman who should be held accountable for her own actions that are damaging her image. And come on, "revolutionary icon"? I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, and she's known as Madonna.\nBorns' idea of her duty as a "patriotic American" is coming to the defense of Spears. I think my brother, serving in the United States military, would find that offensive. I'm sure Spears' millions of dollars will aid in her defense and that she doesn't need the help of an IDS columnist.\nAdditionally, Borns herself admits that "'celebrity role model' is an oxymoron" -- so why admire and defend someone such as Spears? I will give you half credit for the Chihuahua comment, slightly humorous yet again objectionable.\nYou said it yourself: "Divorce, babies, missing Chihuahuas, missing undergarments -- who cares?" Apparently you do, since you're writing about it. And, unfortunately, you are not the only one. You are joined by the many Americans who buy the countless, futile celebrity magazines. I was once a school girl forced to wear a uniform, but only until I read Borns' article did I realize that I was "sexually frustrated." I don't believe I was thinking of such things at that point in my life. Nor do I feel "indebted" to someone like Spears. Her music is catchy, but her lifestyle isn't. When are we going to stop celebrating the lives of self-important, vapid pop stars like Spears and start celebrating the lives of real heroes such as Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice or Eleanor Roosevelt.\nThink about that before giving Spears "mad props" again.\nAli McCormick\nStudent
Stewart's smugness about Bush unfounded\nPresident, Network of Enlightened Women\nIn response to Brian Stewart's Jan. 9 column, titled "Stop smirking":\nI have been a longtime fan of Brian Stewart's column. It's hard to find someone so ignorant who actually believes he is intelligent and knowledgeable about the world. I just loved his sanctimonious article castigating those who make fun of Bush's intelligence, calling them unoriginal pseudo-intellectuals who simply repeat what they hear without questioning it. I especially loved his own pseudo-intellectual response defending Bush: that he's intelligent because he went to Ivy League schools. That's pretty simplistic, don't you think? Not everyone who goes to Harvard and Yale is smart; in fact, many people only get in there because of connections. Bush and Gore, for that matter, are good examples of this. Ever hear of Gentleman's C's?\nWhy else is he intelligent, Mr. Stewart? Oh yes, because he single-handedly defeated each and every Democrat in this country. Doesn't that seem illogical to include the entire Democratic Party in Bush's glorious victory but no one other than Bush from the Republican Party? Is it not possible that the Republican strategists, not the figurehead Bush, did most of the outwitting? You know that's what happens in campaigns and political battles, right? The leader takes the credit (and sometimes the blame) for the work of many, often with self-appointed labels like "the decider." You say you're a political-science major? You must not focus on American politics (or logic courses).\nAt the same time, I have to admit, I actually agree with you. Most people who make fun of Bush do exactly what you say they do. But there is something just as bad: someone who commits the same intellectual sins defending Bush. You're no better than these people you criticize, Mr. Stewart -- you're just on the other political side. Perhaps you should examine your own "style" and rhetoric before you comment on that of others. Pseudo-intellectual indeed, Mr. Stewart. Pseudo-intellectual indeed.\nAdam Pence\nLaw student
Saddam's execution was justice served, not mere revenge\nI take it from the tone of Jonathan Rossing's Jan. 9 column, "Just ... in time" that he must be against the death penalty, regardless of the circumstances. Surely there is another side to Saddam Hussein's story; he must have had his reasons for killing 148 people and ordering the elimination of thousands of Kurdish Iraqis. (Ever look up the effects of mustard gas? Fun stuff.) Yet I think that to disparage this execution with such breathlessly starry-eyed hyperbole is disingenuous at best.\nThe trial and execution of Hussein was not a casual disregard for human life; quite the opposite. It was undertaken with the utmost concern for our well-being as a species -- note that the charge was "crimes against humanity." By giving Saddam a fair trial, the international community placed far more value on Saddam's life than he gave his victims -- and rightly so. I believe that we should respect all life, even those who do not share that belief. Yet respecting life should not be confused with the inability to self-correct our society. This is not petty, tit-for-tat revenge, but the removal of a dangerous and charismatic leader and a moral consequence of murdering 148 people. For a society to function, there must be consequences for unacceptable actions or there will be anarchy. In a global sense, Saddam's death is a message to world leaders that they cannot torture women and children with impunity and use debilitating chemical agents to stifle dissent. (Whether this will actually affect other leaders, particularly Western allies and economic partners, remains to be seen. Perhaps I'm an optimist.)\nA final note: Official media coverage stopped when the noose was placed around Saddam's neck, and while there was an illicit camera video of the actual hanging (is anyone really surprised?), the officials in charge cannot be blamed for that, nor the "celebratory smugness" of people around the world. The court was as impartial as it could be, and the emotions of others do not obviate the decision. There are many issues concerning Iraq that deserve criticism, but I do not think that Saddam's death sentence is one of them.\nKaty Myers\nGrad Student
Propostion 83 does little to protect children from harm\nIn repsonse to Edward Delp's Nov. 28, 2006, column, titled "Protect Children":\nProposition 83 was declared unconstitutional, pending a further legal review, because the 2,000-foot residency barrier from schools and parks is an ex post facto rule against people who have already paid their consequences. In California, there are 104,000 registered sex offenders since registration began in 1944. The list of offenses encompasses over 100 acts, of which only a few are against children. The ban would be imposed against prostitutes, men who solicit prostitutes, frat boys who go skinny dipping or streaking, and 19-year-olds who have sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends and the parents call the police. The list is endless. Most pose little risk to society, yet they're labeled as sexual predators who would prey on vulnerable children if given half a chance. (Funny how stereotypes work!)\nThere are other problems. Many have families; by banishing them, you are also banishing their children. Who are you protecting now? Don't children of sex offenders deserve consideration, or are they just out of luck because they're biologically and emotionally connected to a former sex offender? \nA final point: Experts who work with sex offenders tried to tell the public and politicians banning won't help, as 90-plus percent of child sexual abuse is committed by people the children already know: dads, stepdads, grandfathers, uncles, teachers, coaches, baby sitters, youth pastors. How is banning the guy down the street who made a mistake 20 years ago going to protect that child now from his or her relatives? \nSociety has a problem dealing with the fact that most child abuse, physical and sexual, is conducted by people the child most loves and supports. It goes against the grain to think someone trusted could do such things. It's much easier for society to think the former offender who goes to the park every day is the problem. Facts and statistics show otherwise, but until society is willing to face that fact and support legislation that truly helps children, rather than giving the appearance of helping children, children will continue to be molested.\nIt is that simple!\nShelley Wood\nSacramento, Calif.
Children delicate in regards to harsh cultural realities\nA professor of mine brought Jonathan Rossing's opinion column from Dec. 7, 2006, "Deeper diversity," to my attention.\nWhile I strongly agree with your call to embrace diversity at a meaningful level, I do not think the best way to further progress in that area is to attack the Mathers Museum. The Mathers Museum advocates understanding and acceptance of all cultural traditions, and the many special programs they put on each year are designed to achieve that goal. I am a volunteer at the museum and I have worked at several events similar to "Celebrating Kids and Culture." While I did not attend that particular event (and I gathered from your column that you had not actually attended it either), I can assure you that they did not simply make paper headdresses and sing "Ten Little Indians." At the events I have worked at, all crafts have included a culturally relevant (and culturally sensitive) explanation of why we are making the kite, or jack-o'-lantern, or any number of other projects.\nThe operative word in the title of the event in question is "kids." If you think you can get in front of an audience of 3- to 14-year-olds, put up a PowerPoint about genocide and lecture away about "deeper diversity," then you've obviously never worked with that age group before.\nAt the same time, the Mathers Museum does not shy away from the ugly parts of humanity's history. They simply understand how to present complicated and difficult issues such as genocide, environmental degradation and stereotypes in ways that are appropriate for different age groups. Believe it or not, it is possible to teach real lessons about diversity and also have hands-on experiences that help children to understand complex concepts such as diverse American-Indian cultures. If children learn to accept the easier parts of diversity when they are young, the deeper parts come along a lot easier as they grow up.\nKrissy Fries\nJunior
