Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

4 SOUND OFF ONLINE POLL - Create message boards at Should grills be allowed on campus? www.dailygamecock.com or YES 62% send letters to the editor to- NO 28% gamecockopinions@hotmail.com NO OPINION 9% ___ I IN OUR OPINION We need Web syllabuses Come registration time, USC students have the right to know what they’re getting themselves into. Online syllabuses are a great and inexpensive way of giving them this forewarning. Student Government has passed a resolution to ask all professors to post syllabuses for their classes online before the beginning of Spring semester. Not all sections for classes are necessarily the same. Students need to know what professors will be expecting of them in Not all .sections for order to prepare and classes are succeed, necessarily the Professors teaching same. Students Honors College classes need to know what a do this And ma professors will be . . expecting of them profess°rs uf Blackboard t0 In order to prepare post such lnlormallon as and succeed. • class schedules, grading systems, required texts, contact information, attendance policies and outside work. It would not be difficult to transfer this information to a collective Web site or an extension of the registrar’s office site. This summer, the administration added a fee for any students taking more than 16 credit hours to cut down on students registering for more classes than they actually plan to take, which both deprives other students of a seat in the class and costs USC money. Online syllabuses also would be a tool to fight this evil by letting students know which class sections they definitely wouldn’t want to be in. Gamecock Quotables “If it was, like, Colonial Carolina or Carolina Colonial, I’d be all about that.” AMY WALKER FIRST-YEAR HOTEL MANAGEMENT STUDENT, ON THE RENAMING OF THE CAROLINA CENTER “As much as these images are harrowing, they are also beautiful and moving.” KWAME DAWES USC PROFESSOR, ON THE WORK OF ARTIST ' TOM FEELINGS “As a father, it’s important that my child should be able to choose which religious beliefs are most appropriate without the government weighing in.” MICHAEL NEWDOW ON WHY HE'S APPEALING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN SCHOOLS IN THE UPCOMING SUPREME COURT CASE “I saw our planet. It’s so beautiful.” LT. COL YANG UWEI CHINA’S FIRST ASTRONAUT AFTER HIS ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH GAMECOCK CORRECTIONS If you see an error in today’s paper, we want to know. E-mail us at gamecockopinions@hotmail.com. ABOUT THE GAMECOCK Editor in Chief Charles Tomlinson Managing Editor Adam Beam News Editor Michael LaForgia Asst. News Editor Alexis Stratton Viewpoints Editor Gabrielle Sinclair The Mix Editor Meg Moore Sports Editor Brad Senkiw Asst. Sports Editor Wes Wolfe Photo Editor Morgan Ford Head Page Designer Shawn Rourk Page Designers Justin Bajan. Samantha Hall, Staci Jordan. Phili Whitehead Slot Copy Editors Amy Genoble. Alyson Goff, Tricia Ridgway Copy Editors Mary Waters, Jessica Foster Online Editor James Tolbert Public Affairs Kimberly Dressier CONTACT INFORMATION Offices on third floor of the Russell House. Editor in Chief: gamecockeditor@hotmail.com News: gamecockudesk@hotmail.com Viewpoints: gamecockopinions@hotmail.com The Mix: gamecockmixeditor@hotmail.com Sports: gamecocksports@hotmail.com Public Affairs: gckpublicaffairs@hotmail.com Online: www.dailygamecock.com Newsroom: 777-7726 Editor’s Office: 777-3914 STUDENT MEDIA Director Scott Lindenberg Faculty Adviser Erik Collins Creative Director Susan King Business Manager Carolyn Griffin Advertising Manager Sarah Scarborough Classified Manager Sherry F. Holmes Production Manager Amber Justice > Creative Services Whitney Bridges, Robbie Burkett, Sean O’Meara Advertising Staff John Blackshire, Adam Bourgoin, Ben Sinclair, Jesica Johnson, Ryan Gorman, Laytoya Hines The Gamecock is the editorially independent student newspaper of the University of South Carolina. It is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday during the fall and spring semesters and nine times during the summer, with the exception of university holidays and exam periods. Opinions expressed in The Gamecock are those of the editors or author and not those of the University of South Carolina. The Board of Student Publications and Communications is the publisher of The Gamecock. The Department of Student Media is the newspaper's parent organization. The Gamecock is supported in part by student-activity fees. One free copy per reader. Additional copies may be purchased for $1 each from the Department of Student Media. TO PLACE AN AD The Gamecock 1400 Greene St. Columbia, S.C. 29208 Advertising: 777-3888 Classified: 777-1184 Fax: 777-6482 fjjf- tfAVg'*99 MOCH^ I IN COMMON/ hmwm ix.cv .1 CARTOON BY MARY PINCKNEY WATERS/THE GAMECOC Learning to love old Europe PATRICK AUGUSTINE GAMECOCKOPINIONS@HOTMAIL.COM Making up with France is hard for us to do. They are finally coming around to see things our way. This is the thought that went through the minds of Bush administration of ficials earlier this week as mem bers of the United Nations Security Council withdrew their opposition to an American reso lution on postwar Iraq. Granted, there has been some fancy diplomatic footwork behind the scenes to get us to this point, but I don't think the underlying attitude in the White House has changed in tandem with the sur face overtures. The arrogance that continues to be propagated at the highest levels of our government is the very reason that the Europeans continue to be dis dainful of American intentions and policy, for good reason. It’s high time to kiss “Old Europe” on both cheeks and make up after our recent aloofness. Sure, it looks across the ocean at us the way your parents did when you did something stupid, but maybe we deserve it. After all, its long history of infighting and re ligious conflict has taught it a thing or two about war’s sorrow ful seeds. Unlike the pundits who have suggested that the French in particular want only to see us fail at molding a democracy in Iraq, the Europeans have every reason for us to succeed, and they are be ginning to see this. While the Atlantic has been re duced to a mere lake by the revo lutions in travel and communica tions over the last 50 years, the oceans still protect us from many of the worse consequences of our policy actions. Europe doesn’t have this luxury, and it knows it. Europe will see the cleavages in society long before we will if the world continues on its current po litical trajectory. Just in the same way it is good that Europe is changing its unal loyed antagonism toward the Iraq situation, we need to swallow our typical American stubbornness and learn to make compromises and sacrifices for what we want. The biggest indictment of all the presidents since Lyndon Johnson is that they have failed to inspire the American imagination for a future, better than the present, that makes us willing to sacrifice for that outcome. I believe Americans want to be asked to sacrifice, just like our grandpar ents were asked by FDR to stem the tide of fascism and evil in the world. We are, at heart, a nation that rises to challenges, not one who sinks into the leather uphol stery in our collective SUVs. If this is true of us, we must pur sue real energy alternatives now while forcing Detroit to raise miles-per-gallon averages across the board. We must stop protect ing domestic industries while de manding that developing coun tries open their markets to so phisticated American companies, and we must join the international effort to raise standards for clean water, land and air. We must wake up and realize that this means changing the levels of consump tion and the standard of living to which we have become accus tomed. I am not alone in waiting for a candidate to articulate this alternate future instead of cowing to cliches of what is electable. So, let’s return to calling French fries what they are and drinking Bordeaux. It’s the last thing Saddam would want to see — a unified democratic front in the battle for a future free from the coercion of fear. Augustine is a third-year political science student. IN YOUR OPINION Holt’s tolerance ideas are rational In response to Mitch Frye’s unintelligible assault on Ryan Holt’s tolerance article, I must say I am truly unimpressed by Mr. Frye’s ad hominem argu ments and diversionary de vices. The point of Holt’s arti cle wasn’t to introduce a “new edgy” tolerance, but rather to serve as an apology (in the most classical sense of the word) on behalf of the true na ture of tolerance, which fur: ther implicates an individual’s right to be intolerant. I, for one, am delighted that Mr. Holt took it upon himself to point out the inconsisten cies of the modern perception of tolerance in our society to day. I cannot even begin to re call all of the rude comments I’ve gotten in the name of “tol erance.” If I find a particular idea to be wrong, then that is not called “intolerance,” rather it is called “discerning for myself what is true,” or “having convictions.” On the same note, if I be lieve something to be truth, by the very definition of the word “truth,” I believe that conflict ing beliefs are false. This also is not called “intolerance.” This is called “believing some thing is true.” If two people give you two statements that are inherently in conflict, you cannot believe them both. At least one of them is wrong. Both of them are entitled to their respective opinions, but just because you believe one or more of them to be wrong does not make you intolerant. Likewise, my trying to convince them that they’re wrong is also not intolerance, but rather an exercise of my persuasive abili ties in a manner that is consis tent with my beliefs. Intolerance has unjustifi ably taken a negative conno tation in today’s society, par tially due to a misconception of what this word means. I have many friends who dis agree with me on moral and political points, but the simple fact that I think they’re wrong does not mean I hate them. Disagreement can constitute intolerance, but intolerance never constitutes hatred out of necessity. CURTIS CHOW TIIIIU)-YEAR POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT USC does not put the students first Is USC a school or a busi ness? Since we’ve had these budget cuts, why is the school spending so much money? Why should students have to pay for tuition and for the school itself? USC is trying to be so competitive and accred ited, but why should the stu dents have to pay for it? Is it because they know students will have to pay for it anyway? I started school fall ‘99, and tu ition was exactly $1,700 for in state residents. I know it’s in flationary times, but now it costs $3,000. It almost doubled in 4 years! Why? To help pay for improvements. I thought we were here to get an education. They cut 20 percent of teachers with doc torates. Now all teachers are part-time teachers and barely qualified. The school wants to save as much as possible, and the money they spend should only be used to add capital val ue to the school! The students are paying for everything. Why did they spend all that money on the Russell House and the bookstore? It looks nice but re ally didn’t need the drastic makeover. All students are charged a fee for the Strom Thurmond Center, when they might not even use it. They’re planning to build a hotel while underclassmen sleep in old dorms like the Towers and Bates House, which need improvements. Student IDs cost $25 dollars when they used to be $10. Football tickets are on a first-come-first-served basis. I have a teacher who created a CD that cost $20 for his two HRTM classes which seat 250 students because he says it will take too long to pass out all the course information! Blackboard is easier, not to mention free. $100 books that are sold back for $20 and then resold for $80. They charge 50 cents for 10 pieces of computer paper on campus. And they still call it the “edu cational lottery.” Lottery money goes to new buildings so they can charge students more tuition. What about the students? We need cheaper books, more quali fied teachers, more parking and cheaper tuition. The average stu dent’s financial aid barely pays for tuition, and when you gradu ate, they still call for donations. I pose the question again: is USC a school or a business? SAMUEL BOWEN FOURTH-YEAR MARKETING STUDENT Submission Policy Letters to the editor should be less than 300 words and include name, phone number, professional title or year and major, if a student. E-mail letters to gamecockopinions@hotmail.com. Letters will be edited. Anonymous letters will not be published. Call the newsroom at 777-7726 for more information. Pledge to stop riding the fence* JUSTIN SIMMONS GAMECOCKOPINIONS@HOTMAIL.COM Take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. One nation under God. These four words make up perhaps the most controversial phrase of o^B day. Has a statement ever hu more power to infringe on the rights of others? I mean, who knows the number of children who against their will have been forced to utter those words? Is there no justice? Luckily, there is. For all you children with ad vanced theological positions on the nonexistence of God, your sav lor comes in the torm ot the United States Supreme Court. I have not had someone suc cessfully point out to me where in the Constitution God is ex cluded from being mentioned. The athiests’ favorite phrase, “Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment of religion,” has no validity. For one, I know of no law in whi^Pf Congress says everyone must n. cite the pledge, under threat of punishment. Furthermore, I can hardly see where mentioning God’s name in passing establishes a religion. The term is used in a very generic sense. What God? God the father, Jesus Christ or Allah? People can’t say for sure outside of their own personal interpretation. I would think that to have a religion, you would have to have a specific God to worship. Besides, what have we estab lished simply by saying “God?” Almost every religion I can think of has stricter membership re quirements than a simple sayi^^ of a name. You can relax — y|^ have not been forcefully addeu to the kingdom of God by simply saying his name in the pledge of allegiance. So, you might be asking, if it doesn’t do anything, why say it? It’s a good question, but one I think I have an answer to. We don’t. Understand this is a Christian speaking here, advo cating the removal of all refer ences to God from anything in volving our government. Why, you might ask? Not be cause I think it is unconstitution al. Not because it infringes on the rights of any individual. I would rather we not say it for one sim ple reason: We are a nation tlj^^ no longer means it. Where I’m from, you say what you mean and mean what you say; and in a society saturated with the terms “I” and “me,” God doesn’t have much of a place any mnrp We would prefer to place the Almighty on a shelf to be stored for some time when believing brings us comfort, for some time when we realize our mortality, for some time when our in significance in the grand scheme of things is made all too clear. So I say take “under God” out of the pledge; take “in God we trust” off the money; and, for good measure, we should proba bly amend that part of the Declaration of Independence that talks about being endowed b^^ creator as well. My sense is that God, for those of you who believe he exists, would rather us commit decided ly for him or against him rather than sit the fence. No service is better than lip service. Looking back, I guess you could say the atheists and myself basically agree. Except it’s not that I feel say ing “one nation under God” is unconstitutional; I just think it is hypocritical. Simmons is a third-year history, student._