Channel 12 defenders really need to come up with better reasons why the service should continue. I write in response to Mr. Leo Sell's letter to the editor concerning Channel 12's demise ("Channel shutdown has hidden reasons" SN 3/1).

Mr. Sell believes that hidden motives are at work, and that the "management has systematically devalued the channel and marginalized its staff." Interesting charge. What proof does he offer up that such an offense occurred? He doesn't.

Mr. Sell goes on to question how anyone can believe that the station no longer has any educational value. He writes: "How is it that a service provided since 1992 no longer has any value to the institution? How is it that the educational opportunities it provides are no longer important?"

The mistake Sell makes is to equate longevity with educational value. Simply because Channel 12 has been showing movies and student-produced videos for 13 years does not necessarily mean it has any educational value. It might have entertainment value, but that is a separate issue. Failing to establish its "educational value," one cannot then ask why its educational value is "no longer important."

Trying to interject a bogus argument into a debate over a movie channel is an attempt to take focus away from the legitimate issues involving the decision to shut down Channel 12.

Brandon Lynaugh
1996 graduate