The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, December 09, 1992, Page 5, Image 5
Wednesday, December 9, 1992
"600P-$0t4E0fUS
TO THE LOCAL
S ?ri
Fool
first-class
journalist
To the editor:
All right. This is enough. Tim
Thorsen's Sportin' Fool column is
excellently written and extremely
well-thought out. He has one quality
which newspapers all over the
country strive for: readership. He is
a "one-of-a-kind" sports editorialist,
a dose of fine commentary
within a wave of serious reality.
Except for the fact he pulled for
the Polar Ice Caps during the
World Series, the Sportin' Fool is a
first-class journalist. Everything he
writes will spark criticism, create
laughter, form controversy, promote
thought and, most importantly,
be read thoroughly by many
fans. The Gamecock should be
privileged to have such a quality
sports writer on its staff.
Brooks Tomlin
Geography graduate student
QB Mitchell
immature
To the editor:
This letter refers to Mr.
Mitchell's letter in Monday's
Gamecock (12-7-92). I cannot
believe an ex-collegiate athlete
uucs nui xiavc uic liiaiuiuy iu Handle
a sports columnist's criticisms.
Mr. Thorsen's comments are not
"inane." I find them amusing. In
fact, Mr. Thorsen's columns are the
highlight of my Friday (yes, he
only appears on Friday, so you
have been waiting all fall semester
on Mondays and Wednesdays for
no reason!). With the laughs The
Sportin' Fool has brought to my
roommates and I, I can assure you
that Mr. Thorsen has quite a future
ahead of him.
Since you attacked Mr.
Thorsen's 'manliness,' I feel obligated
to point out how manly it was
to quit the football team. When you
quit, I thought you should have
stayed to provide senior leadership
and maturity. I am glad you left
hpr'Qiicp vnnr lark of matnritv
^ X. ~. JW. -- J
could only hinder the Gamecocks.
I should also point out The
Sportin' Fool is written solely tc
amuse others (Come on, an Alonzc
Mourning salary drive?). Attacking
Mr. Thorsen's athletic ability was a
low blow. Not all of us are blessed
with the athletic ability that you
possess (HA!). I have never seen
Mr. Thorsen throw a football, so ]
cannot compare him to you athletically,
but I have read Mr
Thorsen's work and your editoria
masterpiece. I think you know whc
the winner is in my book.
TJ. Horar
Computer science senioi
I
Affirmative
Action
discriminates
To the editor:
This letter is in response to Mr
Dark's comments in Th<
. Gamecock's Dec. 7 article
? "Stereotypes Incorrect...". Mr. Darl
advocates affirmative action poli
dWUSEAOMM
A| Jtm |M hH mj
cies which are inclusive yet speaks
of "affirmative action jobs," a term
which always implies exclusion of
white males. Why is it past "injustices"
must be "paid for" by
"white" males? It is not the government's
job to penalize people for
what some of their dead ancestors
might have done. Besides, were the
ancestors of most living white
Americans even in this country
when slavery existed?
Mr. Dark is supposedly concerned
about stereotyping but has
performed some major league
stereotyping himself lately. Should
many blacks not be offended when
Mr. Dark refers to them as "people
who don't have anything?" In
America, no race or gender has a
monopoly on either poverty or
prosperity. This has been made
possible through the philosophy of
equal opportunity, a term not at all
synonymous with affirmative
action, as Mr. Dark contends.
* i- T~n i. n?* *
Mr. i^aiK. is nai-uui wiuuj: m
exclaiming, "Anyone can be prejudiced,
but blacks can't be racists."
The Random House Dictionary
defines racism as "hatred or intolerance
of another race or other
races." When is the first edition of
your revised dictionary hitting the
presses, Mr. Dark?
Listen, most people have no
problem acknowledging the abilities
of "people of color" and
women. The problem arises when
individuals are not allowed to compete
with others on a fair basis.
Such discrimination is exactly what
led to the turmoil and unrest in the
1960s and should thus be avoided
at all costs in the 1990s
Scott Berry
Rick Voit
Mech. engineering
graduate students
uciiaiui 3 itui
true leaders
To the editor:
I was personally stunned at what
I read in The Gamecock Monday
Dec. 7. I can hardly believe Carl
Maas and Beth Bangston allowed
their names to be printed with this
statement of irresponsibility.
NOW HEAR THIS. We the students
of USC have wasted our time
and the time of Ms. Bangston and
1 Mr. Maas (according to their letter)
1 by electing them to deal with the
issues currently facing our universi1
ty. As a student, let me personally
' apologize for asking you to carry
1 this cumbersome burden you are so
1 poorly qualified and will undoubt'
edly list on your resume as a sign
of your leadership abilities for
years to come.
' You continue to tell Mr. Elam
> how lucky he was that you did not
do this and that. Newsflash: Guys,
you did not do anything. You ran
1 away. A true leader does not run
away every time he thinks he might
lose. He accepts defeat as the will
of the majority.
Mr. Maas, Ms. Bangston, Ms.
Lovelace and all the rest of you
who ran from senate chambers: It
looks like you are on your ways to
promising political careers, but
because you do not have what it
takes, you will NEVER be true
leaders.
s Mario de Armas
Latin American
Studies/Business Administration
TChc (5am i
Victims' fee
Nat Hentoff s book Free Speech for t
But Not for Thee: How the American
and Left Relentlessly Censor Each Othe
recently published. I have not reai
Hentoff's dissection of the censoring
mostly for supposedly righteous inter
but nevertheless I am well aware of his
expertise concerning the free speech gi
tee included in the First Amendment.
I devour Mr. Hentoff s weekly colum
Village Voice and his occasional nation
cations. I now realize it is not only
wing which attempts to stifle speech; s
left wing wears the blood of suppressi
more noticeably than the extremists on
side.
To analyze a historical definition of
left and right, each wing is dangerous]
in its advocation of any censorship. 1
rwinin^llv nhhnrrprt anv onvprnment inti
v"*fc ?v o
in private matters, including speech, an
staunchly supported individual rights, i
speech.
I firmly support an individual's rigl
the life he so chooses free of govemm
vention. I may be "pulling a Clinton,'
conscience dictates that the middle of
Ban produces *
effectiveness S
n
To the editor: b
I would like to call for an apology
from Jay Tilley concerning his ^
article on gays in the military. Not
only did he make slanderous =
remarks about our senior elected c
military officials, he had the nerve ^
to try to question the honor of these 11
men. Then, if this was not enough, a
he tried to speak for the "decent" ^
American citizens with the same v
insulting, ungrateful tongue. Well, c
vn>, tnoro n.at cru>ol'inii fr\r mp \/tr 1
y v/u wut nui oi/ucuviiii, xv/* niv, *?**.
Tilley! r
The gay ban is not a conspiracy
to rob homosexuals of their rights.
It is a policy created and supported
by men whose primary objective is
military effectiveness. The policy is "
based on years of experience and training.
Even if they are wrong,
they deserve the respect and atten- (
tion of better men than you, Mr.
Tilley.
Having over seven years military
experience myself, I feel confident
in saying Mr. Tilley did very little
research before staining The
Gamecock with his article. There is <
a big difference between a journal- ]
ist presenting viewpoints in a 1
respectful, constructive manner and !
some irresponsible person with a 1
nen clnnnino rtnwn a hrvdopnndoe '
kv" ?c --i oofB.S.
just to raise controversy.
Mr. Tilley claims to be the man 1
on campus people love to hate. If 1
this is true, it is not because of his 1
viewpoints. It is for the half-witted,
disrespectful manner in which 1
he presents it. If Mr. Tilley is the
best columnist The Gamecock can
provide, then my advice is for the
editorial staff would be to shorten
the paper by one page.
Jim Rachels
Engineering Sophomore
Selection
warrants
improvement
To the editor:
After reading the article about
the bill to create a committee to
select a homecoming queen, 1 was
shocked at some of the qualifications.
I could care less whether or
not we have a homecoming queen.
It might be a "wonderful tradi
tion," ana l nave no prooiein wiui
the idea of selecting a queen.
However, I have a serious problem
with the criteria that the decision is
to be based on. I have trouble
throwing blame on the student senate
for running out of the chamber
before the bill was presented.
After reading what the bill contained,
I would have done the
same. According to the bill, the
homecoming queen must have a
minimum 2.5 GPA. This in itself is
quite a shock. But the article goes
on to quote USC President John
Palms saying, "I don't necessarily
think a homecoming queen has to
have a minimum 2.5 GPA. A student
may work hard for the USC
community and only have a 2.2 or
2.3."
I agree that a major aspect of
selecting a queen would be to coni
sider her endeavors to help the
i community. However, will someone
please correct me if I seem
lock
lings rob I
Me ?
Right
r was
j Mr. iSEre35!yiTH7i?j?a
done
llions> C O L U M N I
noted |
jaranis
the proper road on thi
n in The I had to recall Mr. Ht
al syndi- censorship when I re<
the right Joseph Perkins, a syi
adly, the Newspaper Enterprise i
on much (he article, "'Basic vict
the other due," summarizes his i
rising crime rates durinj
both the I wholeheartedly sup
ly wrong whether or not I act
The right amendment ? our fou
erference perspective that is virt
d the left now. When Mr. Perkin
including Bill of Rights, the mos
written, I jump to place
it to live break his pencils,
ent inter- Five of the first ten
' but my stitution outline the rif
the road United States was the
tisled in assuming that the reason
lost universities were started was
i further one's education; although
has been made quite evident to
te that there are people here who
elieve otherwise.
If this bill is enacted, I hope that
le standards are raised instead of
owered. I find it to be a true disrace
to have an individual homeoming
queen representing a center
or learning, when this individual is
iot capable of doing just that. I
lso find it to be an even greater
lisgrace that the president of this
iniversity, is not only NOT advoating
higher academic standards,
>ut making excuses for the very
eason why we are here.
Neil Jacobs
Engineering major
Hnmprnmino
compromise
needed
To the editor:
Because the Homecoming bill I
:o-sponsored has come under so
much lire in the student senate, I
feel compelled to explain to the
student body and the senate the
purpose of the legislation. I honestly
think that although the
Homecoming queen has been
unpopular in the past, the majority
3f the student senate supports the
re-instatement of the position.
Thus, as a representative, it is
my duty to try and implement the
wishes of the students. The bill
was, and still is, the best way to do
this. I am not claiming the legislation
is perfect or unamendable. In
fact, I am fully in favor of a compromise.
I realize most of the student
senators, unlike myself, do not
want a Homecoming queen.
Because of this, I will support all
efforts to find some middle ground.
If this means a Homecoming
ambassador, or something nice it,
then so be it. But it is the duty oi
the senate to find a compromise. 1
hope all senators, regardless of personal
position, feel this way.
As rare as it is for me to agree
with The Gamecock, this time I am
compelled to. While the attitude ol
the editorials has been basically
hostile toward the senate (anc
often-times incorrect), I agree witl
one point ? it is my job to repre
sent the wishes of the student body
This time, it means finding a com
promise to the Homecoming issue.
Owen Donlej
Student senatoi
Attorneys
require
privileges
To the editor:
This letter is in response to th
column "Jailhouse lawyers trie)
prisoners" of the Dec. 2 edition o
The Gamecock.
Mr. Henderson, I am writing I
you today to correct a misunder
standing you have concerning th
dliuiiicytlltlll 11 id oci
that, rather than take the time t
pursue honest journalism, yo
would rather shoot from the hi
and give an uninformed opinion a
to what the law should be.
We in this country are fortunat
to pursue justice through an advei
(ill of Right
'***' " that the st
\ SuiIt inst(
* * ; _ cence. Th
-sjwd " >j yet ^r
-WlL "becomes
7T1 " i * no legal s
s jt ii a m ^ vici
Perkins v.
tims wou
sJ?rey, , Notice thai
inte rs plea lor no more ^ ^ ,
:ently read a piece by . .
idicated columnist for 0ljn '
\ssociation. The title of . 1 00 1
, . .. , above para
tms rights are way pas. ^ ^ (f
tenlimems regarding the effect!
I the past decade. ,
u v?-ii r n u. of law, ev<
>port the Bill of Rights, , ? ,
.. ' -.u u and collect
ually agree with each is Ju(j
inding fathers enjoyed a rnnorl-. a
ually unattainable to us- ^ ? o<
s proposes to amend the dv=,
* crucial document ever '
uiuc uvci ui5 niuuui aiiu . ,
also needs
amendments to the con- exa Pje' n<
;hts of a defendant. The e^: e 11 n=
first society to mandate 1 1S 1S ^0I
respected.
ISB
sarial process. In order for this
adversarial process to be as fair as
possible, it is necessary there be a
confidential relationship between
the attorney and the client. The
courts recognized this in the form
of case law. What is important
about the case you used in your
illustration is the fact your "jailhouse
lawyer" was not an attorney.
The elements necessary for the
privilege to arise have been set
down in the case law of this state's
courts.
Those elements are: 1) where
legal advice is sought; 2) from an
attorney: 3) the communications
relating to that purpose; 4) made in
confidence; 5) by the client; 6) are
at his instance permanently protected;
7) from disclosure by himself
or his attorney; 8) except where the
protection is waived. The absence
of a S.C. Bar Association attorney
made this communication non-privilesed,
and, even if it had been
communicated to an attorney, the
fact that Mr. Owen communicated
it to a third person would have
destroyed the attorney-client privilege.
The privileged communication
between attorney and client is an
awesome responsibility that comes
with some major limitations. For
example, did you know an attorney
is bound not to misrepresent the
truth? Thus, if Mr. Owens had
come to an attorney and said he
committed the crime, the attorney
would be ethically bound not to
allow Mr. Owens on the stand to
give testimony that he did not do it.
It is only with intensive training
that a person may become aware of
the boundaries of this privilege and
thus be able to use it effectively.
The S.C. court system has decided
certain people, due to positions
of confidentiality, deserve a privilege
of non-disclosure of communications.
Mr. Henderson, I hope you do
pursue a career as an attorney, but,
if you do so, you must be sure of
\;mir nrkcitinn cinrt vmir fafK
Krinn E. Evans
Third-year law student
Gays pose
J no discipline
; problem
To the editor:
I read the editorial in Monday's
edition of The Gamecock aboul
homosexuals being allowed to
f serve in the military. As a future
r military leader, I felt compelled to
write and congratulate Mr. Jay
Tilley on his editorial. It was
superbly written.
I served in the Army in Europe
for three years after high school
While in Europe, I served witl
numerous gay and lesbian service
members. They all did their jobs
with honor and distinction.
I also served in the S.C. Nationa
Guard during Operation Deser
e Storm. I knew several homosexual:
k who served in my unit and othei
f military units. I even observed gay:
from other country's military units
0 This never caused a disciplint
- problem, or any other problems fo:
e that matter.
d Currently, I am on an Arm;
0 ROTC scholarship to USC. I d(
u not see any problem with gays ant
P lesbians serving alongside me ii
? the military. If any officers objec
to basic civil rights extended t<
e homosexuals and they resign fron
5
;s of power
ate or plaintiff prove the defendant's
tad of proving a defendant's innoe
burden is on the prosecution, and
Perkins complains that a victim
little more than a witness and has
landing."
!ims are awarded the rights Mr.
'ould place in their hands, most vicld
be judge, jury and executioner.
L the law already provides for all
he victim is rightfully nowhere to be
possess the heart of stone the four
graphs imply. In fact, I sympathize
>r the victims who suffer through the
>. But if feelings counted in a court
sryone would be found guilty here
damages there.
licrous for Mr. Perkins to suggest
mend the Bill of Rights to include
? of victims: the defendant possesses
itage.
;, and God knows this includes me,
to adhere to Mr. Hentoff's golden
o matter the opinion another express;ht
or wrong (and if it is wrong, then
npnnp pIcp'c nnininn^ it miKt he
mm
the military, I am sure they can,
and will, be replaced rather easily.
Furthermore, I find the assertion
that heterosexual service members
cannot, and will not, get along with
homosexuals a lame excuse. It is a
slap in the face to enlisted soldiers
to claim they will not follow
orders. I believe the military leadership
should give today's professional
soldiers credit for being just
that ? professionals!
My views do not represent the
official military point of view and I
am probably in the minority in my
support of gays and lesbians. I
want it also to be known that not
all military leaders are "a bunch of
discriminating, hypocritical, Marge
Schott warmabeEs."
Jay Belangia
Criminal Justice sophomore
Attorney
criticizes
columnist
totw ZK&fh v'" "*'
Ta tka orlS#rvr?*
A V HIV VUliUI
This letter is in response to the
article written by Carson
Henderson concerning the South
Carolina Supreme Court's Decision
in State v. Owens. As a recent
graduate of USC's School of Law
and someone who has some interest
in this case, I would just like to
clear up a few misconceptions I
believe Mr. Henderson has concerning
the matter.
First, the South Carolina
Supreme Court does have jurisdiction
over constitutional issues
involved in this case or any other
case, as does any other court in the
state.
Second, Mr. Henderson apparently
believes that the Supreme
Court simply "giossea over me
jailhouse lawyer issue. This is just
not true. The court considered this
issue as it did the others involved
in the case. As explained on the
final page of the court's opinion,
jailhouse lawyers are not attorneys.
It is simply ludicrous to suggest
that a professional privilege should
be extended to cover conversations
with someone who has obtained his
knowledge of the law and the court
system through his participation in
it in the role of a criminal defendant
and inmate. It is analogous to
extending the doctor-patient privilege
to conversations about a
, sprained ankle with someone who
has had one before and read about
it in a medical self-help book. It is
! for this very reason the court dis?
missed this argument as being
' without merit.
i If the truth be known, the real
issues in the case centered around
Hmihlp ipnnardv imnlirafions and a
troublesome coercion charge given
i by the trial judge. Unfortunately,
; these issues don't make for excit;
ing reading, and the main thrust of
the case was missed.
1 In defense of Mr. Henderson, it
t appears that he obtained his infor>
mation from an article in The State,
r and he cannot be held responsible
s for someone else's point of view.
However, if Mr. Henderson does
; plan to attend law school, he
r should remember two thfngs: 1)
Always read a case before you
/ expound upon it, and 2) Never ask
) a question (rhetorical or otherwise),
1 unless you know the answer.
i
t Allen Bullard
a Attorney at Law
i