Am I missing something or have others also noted an inconsistency in the administrations explanation of police infiltration of Students for Economic Justice? On the one hand, MSU police Chief Bruce Benson responded to a Freedom of Information Act request for records and notes of the undercover operation by saying he destroyed them because they were no longer necessary. On the other hand, in grasping for straws to justify police spying on a legitimate student organization, President M.
As both a student and a fan of the First Amendment, I am glad to see that the battle over whether ASMSU will gain editorial control over the Red Cedar Log finally ended with a defeat of that proposal. There were some important legal concerns in the content of the bill that would allow ASMSU editorial control of MSUs student yearbook; these concerns involved both First Amendment issues and problems relating to MSUs anti-discrimination policy.
In response to the letter written by Anthony Kendall (Original messages were offensive, SN 4/20), I would just like to say that on a campus containing diverse people with equally diverse beliefs, sensitivity to differences is vital. Freedom of speech is also vital and some will say that where the two conflict, there is no right or wrong solution.
In John La Fleurs column published Friday, he made public his ignorance of the topic of gay and lesbian relationships, as well as the role marriage plays in society. Sociologists recognize marriage not as a legal union from which children are born, but as a multifaceted bond based on commitment, love and intimacy. In addition, the reality of marriage is that many marriages remain childless by choice. La Fleur should have done some research before presuming to know what marriage means to American society.
If we subscribe to the ideas that John La Fleur suggests are correct in his column, we may find ourselves in a scarier, more unfortunate situation than what already exists by not allowing homosexual marriages. The way that marriage was described to me for as long as I can remember is that it is an institution for which people who love each other can live together with certain benefits and recognition - such as a joint tax situation or health benefits. Never was it described to me as a legal union from which children are born. The idea of marriage for the purpose of procreation is ridiculous.
The members of the Graduate Employees Union should be congratulated for their hard work in solidifying their collective bargaining victory. Graduate employees appointed as teaching assistants went to the polls Thursday and Friday to vote on whether they wanted to be represented by a union.
You have to feel sorry for the people of Peru if they are relying on President M. Peter McPherson to make sure they have a functioning democracy. McPhersons paranoiac behaviors regarding Students For Economic Justice is far more damaging to this university than binge drinking and sports-related riots ever could be.
In John La Fleurs column Friday, he states marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals because marriage is a formal mechanism to establish order in the lives of children. Therefore, because homosexuals are incapable of having children among themselves, he argues they shouldnt be allowed to marry.