The U condescending to AFSCME
In June, we workers at the University received a "total compensation statement" from the human resources department. The statement is supposed to give us a "bird's-eye view" of the value of our pay and benefits.

The statement omits, among other things, the following information.

Last summer American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee workers asked for a 3.25 percent raise, which the legislature had funded, and we didn't get it. Now, we are being told that we don't know how good we have it.

Since 1994, AFSCME wages have lost about 5 percent of their value when adjusted for inflation. During this same time, inflation-adjusted wages for administrative and faculty employees have increased by double-digit percentages.

What was the University thinking when they came up with the idea for these statements? Their actions don't match their rhetoric. Did they think that we employees would simply accept this statement or, instead, be annoyed about being treated like we're stupid?

Mike Toft
AFSCME 3800 member

U professor angers Catholics
I've always been proud to be a U of M graduate, until now. I cannot believe that the U of M is condoning acts of hate and desecration towards Christians by one of its faculty members; specifically, Professor Paul Zachary Myers, who is at the University of Minnesota-Morris.

As a Catholic, I am appalled at Professor Myers' behavior. He is calling upon others to break the law for the sole purpose of hurting and disrespecting those of a different religion.

If Professor Myers was threatening to pee on a Koran, he would already be fired, yet his encouragement of hate crimes toward Catholics is tolerated by the University. Why is this?

I fully agree that he has the right of free speech, but the last time I checked, free speech did not include encouraging acts of violence and extreme disrespect toward those of other religions. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Having a right to do a thing is not at all the same as being right in doing it."

I will not continue to support the U of M financially as long as Professor Meyers is permitted to use University resources to promote actions of hatred toward Catholics.

JoAnna Wahlund
University alumna

Clarifying something
Please help me to be sure I didn't misunderstand the story published about "the husband and wife duo of health researchers Profs. Francois Sainfort and Julie Jacko." It seemed to say that the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the state is going to pay the couple $469,000 a year (or a half a billion dollars, when retirement and other benefits are calculated) for one to handle "informatics" and the other to lead "policy and management." Did your report get it wrong? Are they not, in fact, guilty of misinforming the present management of the Institute of Health by lying about being simultaneously employed full-time at Georgia Tech? How ironic!

Byron Marshall
Emeritus Professor of History

Poor judicial choices
Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned about the behavior of certain federal judges who don't seem to understand the original intentions of our founders. For instance, District of Columbia Judge Royce Lamberth recently ruled that President Bush must hand over to "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics" records concerning White House visitors.

Their obvious aim, of course, is to distract Bush's attention from far more meaningful pursuits - like figuring out how to meet the energy needs of 300 million people and winning the war on terror - by sniffing around his guest lists.

Lamberth doesn't think such information should remain shielded under executive privilege because they are created and controlled by the Secret Service. It's unfortunate that a Reagan-appointed judge cannot connect the dots linking the activities of the Secret Service and the executive privileges of its most important client.

Lamberth says that records of the visitors won't disclose presidential communications or reveal details on Bush's policy deliberations. But if that's true, why did the case move forward? If all CRE is seeking are the identities of White House visitors, of what importance is that to them beyond its political value? Where is the compelling public interest here? Don't we already know Bush likes hanging out with Billy Graham?

This isn't a question of whether or not the case presents a burden for the Secret Service - Lamberth's apparent focus. No, this is a question of whether or not our president should be forced to cave to a whiney interest group with a huge axe to grind.

Mark D. Overholser
University alumnus