The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, October 01, 2004, Page 4, Image 4
;• ' .
”■—■—^TTT'T—N “i—m yrTl y~Ni ONLINE POLL
ill/! / I 1/ ll \ r B 1 L 1 Should use discontinue its 4
Li B l\ I I_Jm B I L ' I ' relationship with food supplier *
Page 4 I P J V V I l/l l I L | vww.dailygamecock.core to
Friday, October 1,2004 B 1 A f f B Vy _L-JL 1 B —s vote. Results posted on Friday.
AMECOCK
EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITOR
Adam Beam
DESIGN DIRECTOR
David Stagg
NEWS EDITOR
Michael LaForgia
THE MIX EDITOR
Meg Moore
COPY DESK CHIEF
Gabrielle Sinclair
VIEWPOINTS EDITOR
Wes Wolfe
SENIOR WRITER
Kevin Fellner
ASST. NEWS EDITOR
Jon Turner
IN OUR OPINION
Recruiting change
no change at all
tThe USC athletics department patted itself on the back last
week for disbanding the Carolina Classics, a student organiza
tion made up of 33 women who show prospective athletes
around campus. Athletic officials said they did it so they
could report to the SEC by Dec. 1 addressing sensitive
recruiting issues dealing with sex.
The impetus for this report came after the University of
Colorado scandal where sex was used as a recruiting tool for
_c„ ncr
i—-—
decided to be above reproach
and do away with the Carolina
Classics. In its place, USC
used female athletes, specifi
cally some members of the
equestrian team, to show
prospective athletes around
campus.
According to Sports Information Director Kerry Tharp, the
women’s duties are over after dinner the first night of an ath
lete’s visit. But if it isn’t appropriate for a female student to ush
er an athlete around campus, why is it appropriate for a female
athlete to do the same?
If USC really wants to be above reproach in its recruiting
practices, it wouldn’t substitute the Carolina Classics with
female athletes. We feel having athletes show athletes around
campus is fine, but they shouldn’t be limited to women. USC
should have a pool of men and women athletes available to
show prospective student athletes around campus and answer
any questions they might have.
It’s hypocritical for athletics officials to replace Carolina
Classics with a policy that replicates the organization it
replaced. If the athletics department thinks it is doing USC a
favor, they need to look again — they could be doing more
harm than good.
If USC wants to be
above reproach in
its recruiting
practices, it
wouldn’t substitute
the Carolina
Classics with
female athletes.
IT’S YOUR RIGHT
Exercise your right to voice your opinion.
Create message boards at
www.dailygamecock.com
or send letters to the editor to
gamecockopin ions@gwm.sc .edu
GAMECOCK CORRECTIONS
Wednesday’s editorial should have said GTV requested $3,200 from RHA.
» The Gamecock regrets the error.
If you see an error in today’s paper, we want to know. E-mail us at
gamecockopinions@gwm.sc.edu.
ABOUT THE GAMECOCK
EDITOR
Adam Beam
DESIGN DIRECTOR
David Stagg
COPY DESK CHIEF
Gabrielle Sinclair
NEWS EDITOR
Michael LaForgia
ASST. NEWS EDITOR
Jon Turner
VIEWPOINTS EDITOR
Wes Wolfe
THE MIX EDITOR
Meg Moore
SPORTS EDITOR
Jonathan Hillyard
ASST. SPORTS EDITOR
Daniel Kerr
SENIOR WRITER
Kevin Fellner
PHOTO EDITOR
Jason Steelman
SPORTS PHOTO EDITOR
Katie Kirkland
PAGE DESIGNERS
Erin Cline, Jennifer
Logan, Chas McCarthy,
Jessica Ann Nielsen,
Staci Jordan
COPY EDITORS
Jennifer Freeman,
Anna Huntley, Daniel
Regensheit, Jason
Reynolds, Jennifer
Sitkowski, Steven Van
Haren, Joey Wallace
ONLINE EDITOR
Brian Cope
PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Jane Fielden, Katie
Miles
CONTACT INFORMATION
Offices on third floor of the Russell House.
The Editor’s office hours are Monday and
Wednesday from 3-5 p.m.
Editor: gamecockeditor@gwm.sc.edu
News: gamecocknews@gwm.sc.edu
Viewpoints: gamecockopinions@gwm.sc.edu
The Mix: gamecockfeatures@gwm.sc.edu
Sports: gamecocksports@gwm.sc.edu
Public Affairs: gamecockPR@yahoo.com
Online: www.dailygamecock.com
Newsroom: 777-7726; Sports: 777-7182
Editor’s Office: 777-3914 4
I
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
Garen Cansler
CREATIVE SERVICES
Burke Lauderdale,
Chelsea Felder, Laura
Gough,Joseph
Dannelly, Kristen
Williams
ADVERTISING STAFF
Robert Carli, Breanna
Evans, Ryan Gorman,
Caroline Love, Jesica
Johnson, Katie Stephens
I
1
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 coiiy per
reader. Additional
copies may be
purchased for $1 each
from the Department of
Student Media.
TO PLACE AN AD
The Gamecock Advertising: 777-3888
1400 Greene St. Classified: 777-1184
Columbia. S.C. 29208 Fax: 777-6482
CARTOON COURTESY OF KRT CAMPUS
USC risks student identity theft
■ University must stop
using Social Security
numbers on documents
Have you ever wondered why you
didn’t know your Social Security
number before college? Do you evet
think twice about writing it on a test?
Why is this number so important? As
an American citizen, you’re a
number, in its most basic definition.
When it comes down to it, you’re a
number.
Identity theft is one of the top five
white-collar crimes and accounts foi
more than $8 billion in this country.
Identity theft, having one’s name and
Social Security number used by
another person, is surprisingly
common. Unfortunately, culprits are
often difficult to catch as the victim
feels the effects for years afterward.
USC shows little concern foi
students’ vulnerability and privacy
and entices identity theft to occur.
This morning, I took a test. Or
both my Scantron and my written
portion I was required to provide my
name and Social Security number.
This is a common USC testing
procedure. USC requires students to
plaster their Social Security numbers
on every document, official or not,
and the university itself covers letters
and notices in this private, nine-digil
code. While I’m sure USC does
background checks on professors and
other employees, I do not know my
teacher. I don’t know what they’ll dc
with my
information.
Hell, I don’t
know if they’ll
lose my test
(which happens
all the time),
and my SSN
will fall into
the wrong
hands.
Or maybe
I’m just
abnormally
paranoid.
Though
most credit
card companies and banks will not
require victims to repay every penny
stolen in the event of identity theft,
they often have to pay fees that
amount to approximately $5,000.
Also, the victim’s credit report is
usually ruined in the process. Many
instances of this crime are an offender
using another’s information to take
out bank loans. This can result in
terrible credit for the victim,
therefore denying them a house, a car
or a loan of their own.
Upon graduation, I will have debt.
I am not a South Carolina resident
and did not receive the coveted LIFE
scholarship. I have student loans.
And if USC continues to require
students to use their SSNs as their
student numbers, there’s a chance my
financial situation could be worse. I
would have student loans AND debt
from identity theft. Why would USC
m. ^
ERICA
KOLMIN
THIRD-YEAR
ENGLISH
STUDENT
set students up like this?
Because of the baby boom
generation, our generation is not
guaranteed Social Security money. So
now I’m in debt from college and
identity theft and not receiving
benefits from Social Security. This is
crap.
Twenty years down the road,
when USC is calling monthly for a fat
check while I’m still in .the hole
because a chemistry teacher lost my
test, there will be a problem. USC
needs to abandon the use of SSN as
student IDs. It’s just stupid.
How difficult is it to assign students
a randomly generated nine-digit
number? This is common practice at
other major universities. At most
schools, upon admission students are
given a randomly generated but never
previously used whatever-digit number
as a student ID. While it may be a pain
to memorize another code, students
are smart. This is college, after all. And
if you can’t let go of SSNs, at least limit
its usage to the last four digits like
some classes do.
USC needs to catch up with the
times and get with the program:
Identity theft is a problem in this
country. The administration needs to
prohibit professors from requiring it
on tests, and the administration itself
needs to stop abusing it. Get my
Social Security number off of
everything I touch, or start telling
freshmen to be sure to add a
document shredder to their list of
things to bring to school.
IN YOUR OPINION
Conservative voice
repressed by liberals
We all know how adamant
liberals are about their right to
freedom of speech — if it wasn’t for
angry posters talking about the “war
on women” and tasteful bumper
stickers that read, “Lick Bush in
2004,” liberals would be lost as to
how to get their messages across.
But we Republicans, how can we
actually think that we’re allowed to
voice our opinions when it comes to
the presidential candidates?
Anyone’s opinion that differs from
a “liberal” belief shouldn’t be
known. According to Laura Kotti
(“No shame in being young,
liberal,” Wednesday), having a
bumper sticker on our car that
supports George W. is a
preposterous idea and a right that
we do not have.
Kotti’s self-righteous claims also
include that liberals are the only
people who care about the well
being of others. But Kotti, in your
list of liberal causes you forgot to
mention abortion. Oh wait, liberals
do believe in murdering innocent
babies. I’m sorry, for a second there
that slipped my mind.
And to address Kotti’s confusion
regarding conservatives’ view of the
majority of the news broadcast
channels being bias, two words:
Dan Rather.
EMILY HUFFMAN
First-year early childhood
education student
Direct approach will
win Bush re-election
While I applaud Kim Patrick’s
idealism (“Voters have duty to elect
good leaders,” Wednesday) in
' thinking that the average American
voter is (or ought to be) following
the dictates of her conscience or her
economic self-interest when voting,
I believe she overlooks the
importance of the candidates’
simple emotional appeal.
President Bush’s strength in the
polls is, I believe, largely attributable
to his self-promotion as the “strong”
candidate. Even now that we have
found no WMDs in Iraq, even now
that we know* Saddam had no
significant links to al Qaeda, and
even as the death toll rises in both
military and civilian terms, the
average American, it seems, feels
safer with a chief executive who
takes decisive unilateral action, who
does not apologize when it turns out
he made a mistake based on the
information he had at the time.
Even if that mistake is costing us
billions of dollars and thousands of
American lives.
These consequences seem not to
matter to the average voter, who
prefers a “straight shooter” like Bush
to a “flip-flopper” like Sen. Kerry. I
suspect this is primarily because of
Bush’s preferred language of gut
level moral black and white. His
professed view of the world is always
America vs. Evil-Doers.
Kerry’s insistence on discussing
moral ambiguities and complex
international relationships, while
possibly attractive to intellectuals, is
only going to hurt him on Election
Day. If Kerry continues to pursue a
campaign based on rational analysis
of the current administration’s
policies, then I predict a clear
victory for the Bush campaign, in
both the popular vote and the
Electoral College. Only an emotion
based, sound-bite-heavy spin
campaign to which average voters
are willing to listen is capable of
producing a winning candidate in
this country.
ROBERT P. DAVIS
Graduate student in the Law
School
Judgmental columnist
' reveals his hypocrisy
Curtis Chow’s latest rant
(“Freshman sense of style indicative of
ignorance,” Wednesday) is laden with
hypocrisy. Chow takes “teeny
boppers” to task for their dress and
personal style, and he even attacks
their values and intelligence. I could
make similar inferences about Chow
based on his trademark coat and tie.
For instance, I could guess that he’s a
reasonably bright student, dedicated
to his studies and ready to apply his
above-average mastery of economics
to a real career.
Then I might also say that Chow is a
campus politiciah who thinks that he’s
more important than he really is.
Furthermore, I could offer that Chow
overrates his intellect, has a mouth he
can’t control and sincerely believes that
he’s always right.
The truth of the matter is that I
don’t know Chow personally and
therefore can’t say any of these things.
Few people are innocent of making
such unfair assessments. Even the
Birkenstock-wearing, hemp-twisting,
pot-smoking free-lovers are at fault
when they make fun of their peers who
wear pastel shorts, Lacoste shirts and
Croakies. For this group of hypocrites,
the title “hippie” (or “hyppie”) is
appropriate. For all the rest of you who
promptly snickered and thought
“Greeks” about the latter folks, I rest
my case.
WHIT ASHLEY
Second-year electronic
journalism 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
gamecockopin ions@gwm.sc.edu. Letters
will be edited. Anonymous letters will not
be published. Call the newsroom at 777
7726 for more information.
Candidates
shouldn't
use wars
as weapons <
■ Politicans don’t
understand real issues
behind Vietnam, Iraq
In case you haven11 noticed (and if you
haven’t noticed, then you don’t watch any
TV news and so should be commended),
the Vietnam War has become a big deal
lately.
i ne tcepuDi
icans tell us that
Kerry is a bad
person because he
spoke out against
the war, even
though he actually
fought in it. The
Democrats tell us
that Bush is a bad
person because he |
joined the Texas
Air National
Guard in order to
avoid being sent
to war in Vietnam.
Recently, a plan in
Canada to put up a memorial to the draft
dodgers who settled in the town of Nelson
was attacked on every front possible. Bill
Clinton, if anyone can remember way, way
back then, was attacked both times he ran
for the presidency for being a draft dodger.
We . can all agree — Republicans,
Democrats, everybody — that the
Vietnam War was a good idea. Bush
should have been there, Clinton should
have been there and Kerry should have
been happy that he was there. Is this not
obvious?
What is going on here? I wasn’t around
for the war, but if my history teachers were
right about anything, the Vietnam War
was a bad idea. We poured burning
gasoline on random villagers. Random
Buddhist monks set themselves on fire.
The CIA participated in the assassination
of the Vietnamese leader on our side. The
whole mess was the result of a misguided,
now discredited foreign policy of
“containment” and an equally discredited
fear of global communism. If I remember
correcdy, we lost the war, but we’re not
now communists.
Back to today: Countless Americans
and Vietnamese from both sides died in a
war in which the Americans had no
business being involved. The war is
deplored. The reasons for the war have
been discredited and deplored. The
Americans who actually went were thrown
into a situation of death and killing that
they didn’t deserve. But are the ones who
didn’t po to be deolored?
GRAHAM
CULBERTSON
FOURTH-YEAR
ENGLISH
STUDENT
Let me announce right now, in 2004: If
thete were a draft for the Iraq war, I would
dodge it. I would get married, have kids,
join the Coast Guard and National Guard
and flee to Toronto. And the Iraq war, as
near as I can tell, involves not only a
fraction of the casualties of the Vietnam
war but is even, no matter what you think,
ideologically more sound. I didn’t say
sound (time may tell), but certainly more
sound.
And we attack Bill Clinton for
smoking weed in England? We hate Kerry
for throwing away some medals and
criticize Bush for joining the National
Guard and not exactly fulfilling all of its
requirements? Who are we kidding here,
people? 1 wouldn’t have wanted to be
there, you wouldn’t have wanted to be
there. It was no one’s duty to be there. It
wasn’t morally wrong not to be there.
Again, with all due respect to all of the
brave and faithful military personnel
involved, the only thing that may have
been morally reprehensible is dropping
napalm on innocent civilians. And Bush is
a child of privilege for not wanting to go?
Kerry is not a patriot for condemning a
war that is universally condemned, after
he returned from it? Clinton shouldn’t
have smoked pot?
Let’s get it together, people. The
Vietnam War was bad. Napaiming
villagers is bad. Condemning it is good.
Skipping out on the bogus plane flying
which is keeping you alive is good.
Smoking pot is good. None of these things
are bad. If we can't agree on that, well,
maybe you'd be more at home murdering
civilians in Chechnya.
h