The federal government should be absolutely ashamed with themselves. Thousands may have died in one of the worst catastrophes in U.S. history, and it takes five days to get relief to them? Meanwhile, our commander in chief is on vacation and our secretary of state is shopping for shoes? Then they tell the American people that they didn’t know the levees would break? What happened to the $500 billion deficit that we funded to help bolster national security? I understand that Americans must help each other, but we don’t pay payroll, sales, property, state and federal income taxes so they can go into a black hole. We pay them so that the government can feed and house its citizens in times of peril, like now. The federal government dropped the ball, and it cost the lives of thousands of its citizens.
Daniel Agarwal
Trinity ’09
AP story biased
In reading The Associated Press article entitled “Blast levels house in Gaza, killing 4,” (Sept. 6, 2005) I noticed a notable pro-Palestinian bias. The article used quotations calling the explosion part of Israel’s supposed “dirty assassination policy,” and concludes by promoting Palestinian resistance, also known as suicide bombings and terrorism, to end the Israeli “occupation.” I want to point out that the true source of the explosion was determined Tuesday to be an accident in a bomb factory set up by the organization Hamas in the basement of the building. It is unfortunate that such carelessness took five lives and injured others (a fifth death was recorded later), but perhaps we should look on the bright side: at least now Hamas has a few less bombs, not to mention bombers, to recklessly detonate themselves amid Israeli citizens.
Joel Ribnick
Trinity ’09
Alcohol policy denies realities
My reaction thus far to the administration’s handling of the Alcohol Law Enforcement situation has been one of confusion and a desperate attempt to understand what its line of thinking is. The only way I can codify its stance is to compare it to a different issue of educational administration.
On the high school level, the issue of sex education is an extremely contentious and awkward one. In public schools, policies dictate that rather than teaching safe sex—which, it is believed, inherently accepts that sex amongst teenagers will take place—a message of abstinence can be the only acceptable pedagogical stance.
Studies have shown this to be an unrealistic and irresponsible way of approaching the issue: Sexual activity among high schoolers is on the rise, and refusing to arm teenagers—who are going to have sex one way or the other—with the tools to do it safely does not solve any problem. All it does is allow those who create policy to uphold their own arcane values.
Here at Duke the administration is uncomfortable and unwilling to address the issue of student drinking. Its transgression is twofold. It insults the intelligence of students by refusing to acknowledge the issue altogether in its claims that a “meaningful dialogue” is being pursued—something that has historically gotten students and the administration nowhere. Like high school administrators who refuse to teach the points of safe sex, it refuses to provide students—who are going to drink whether the administration likes it or not—with a clear message as to where the administration wants the students to drink, be that in section or off campus.
I challenge administrators at Duke to grow up and do this, because Duke students are going to drink, and refusing to acknowledge this puts us at an irresolvable impasse.
Dan Singer
Trinity ’08
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.