Letters to the Editor

Dorms don't foster respect

This isn't another letter to feed the debate between greeks and non-greeks. As a member of Zeta Psi Fraternity, I know all the facts, surveys and stereotypes, and I believe in the facts, but not necessarily all of the stereotypes that go around about the greek system.

About half of our members live in the dorms. The University contends that dorms foster a healthy living environment and promote proper student development.

Some of the stories that I've heard and read about Frontier and Territorial halls don't make the dorms look good. I read an article in the Daily about a bomb going off in a stairwell in Frontier Hall. I didn't think this was highly significant.

But I began to think it was when I heard some stories from our members who live in Frontier. One of them told me about lights being broken in hallways and community advisors afraid to walk down dark corridors. Another person told me about someone plugging a shower stall and flooding an entire hallway. I hear stories about lack of sleep or proper study space because their roommates are having large gatherings in their room late at night. The guys we recruited are trying their best to move out of the dorms into the fraternity house, but they are having trouble getting out of their contracts.

You can say all you want about fraternities: We drink too much. We don't study at all. We go through women like a meat processing facility. Use all the criticisms you want. But you don't see fraternity members blatantly destroying their houses or creating an atmosphere where the people living in the house are afraid to walk down the hallways.

Responsibility and respect is the new promotional pitch of Housing and Residential Life. But it doesn't seem like the dorms engender much respect from their residents. It seems that immaturity and disrespect have overtaken the dorms.

What irritates me about the Daily is not the opinions expressed about the greek system, but unbalanced reporting about the problems that affect the health and safety of the students. Do dorms really foster the well-being of the students? Do they promote respect and responsibility as they say? Are they really a positive, integral part of the University experience? Only with balanced information can one make a responsible decision.

Steven L. Kummer,senior, Institute of Technology,member, Zeta Psi Fraternity

Editorial on Australia shoddy

I recognize that having to come up with something intelligent to say each day for the Daily's editorial must be something of a strain, but Tuesday's editorial, "Priscilla should be Australia's only queen," was so bad that it managed to test the limits of my otherwise boundless sympathy for you.

I was spoiled for choice when deciding to which particular aspect I should respond. Should I begin with its simple factual errors? Australia does not have dollar "bills," there is not "overwhelming support" for a republic, nor do the "majority of Australians" want an American-style president. Or should I take it to task for its woolly and muddled thinking, like the glib contrasts between "subject" and "citizen"?

Then again, I thought that maybe I should just concentrate on its basic ignorance of the Australian constitution. For example, the relevance of Elizabeth Windsor to the Australian political system is in her capacity as the Queen of Australia, not the Queen of England.

In any event, my indignation began to abate when I realized that the problems with your editorial were the inevitable consequences of an uninformed writer pressed for time, trying to make sense of a detailed and subtle debate involving questions of national identity, history and politics on the basis of a simple blurb in some Associated Press-style news brief.

Upon reflection, it became apparent that the superficialities, distortions and untruths of the editorial were not so much the product of benevolent ignorance, but of a misguided attempt to interpret Australia's debate over its constitution in terms of a grand evolutionary scheme of political forms.

Of course, the editor believes that American republicanism is the most advanced of all forms and that other nations who do not possess an American-style system are somehow less advanced and therefore inferior.

His view is that by abandoning their constitutional monarchy in favor of a republic, the Australians are somehow slowly struggling their way out from under the oppressive control of England and liberating themselves by becoming more like the United States.

I can almost imagine him saying to himself as he finished writing, "Gee whiz, those Aussies may not be giving their president the same range of powers as we gave ours, but, God bless their little souls, one of these days they'll get it right and be just like us," before slamming a Bud, chanting "we're number one" a few times, and then sitting down to get all warm and fuzzy by watching "Air Force One" for the 15th time.

The idea that Australia's debate over the form of its own constitution is somehow the result of Australians finally reaching a level of political consciousness which Americans reached 220 years ago is, quite frankly, offensive.

Australia chose to become a constitutional monarchy in 1901 because a constitutional monarchy has tangible political benefits. It has been extraordinarily successful in fostering a stable and equitable society in Australia. Australia has not been ripped apart by civil war, nor have substantial parts of its major cities been burned to the ground in civil disturbances. The country's citizens have never been shot and killed by the armed forces, nor are they in jeopardy of being executed by the state.

Australia's constitutional monarchy was one of the first national political systems to recognize the right of women to vote and it has implemented an extensive social security system, a nationalized health care program, as well as next-to-free tertiary education.

Australia has retained its constitutional monarchy for the past century because this system has worked for Australians, not because of any political immaturity. Furthermore, should Australia choose to become a republic, it will have nothing to do with seeking to emulate America and everything to do with Australians deciding which constitutional form will best serve their needs.

In the future, I suggest that if the editor wishes to write a puff piece extolling the virtues of the American constitutional system, he restrict himself to writing about America.

I appreciate that many Americans find it difficult to be interested in the affairs of other countries without the relevance of those affairs to America being made painfully clear, but twisting Australia's constitutional debate so that it merely serves to demonstrate the editor's confidence in his own country was not only arrogant and a disservice to the readers of the Daily, but also a piece of simply shoddy journalism.

Lachlan Mead,graduate student, English