the stentorian | ncssm
op/ed
november 2003 3
Letter to the Editor
Ben Davis
F irst of all, this letter is
meant in no way to be
disrespectful. However,
I have a number of problems
with the "Gay Marriage in the
USA?" article in the previous
issue of The Stentorian, listed
below.
1. Are newspapers not
supposed to be unbiased? How
can this publication "inform
and empower the student
body" if it is biased to one
side? This article is clearly
biased, and not even in accor
dance with popular opinion, as
admitted internally.
2 Next, the statement
"...because the majority of
Americans are opposed to
same-sex marriages does not
warrant the prevention of it."
WHAT?!?!?!?!?! This state
ment directly contradicts the
entire principle upon which
this nation was founded, the
"power of the people" our gov
ernment is supposed to be
based on. That is, what the
people want, not specifically
what a select few consider to
be the best thing for the peo
ple; this is probably the most
despotic statement I have ever
been subjected to, this violates
every fundamental principle of
democratic or republican gov
ernment, as well as many oth
ers.
3 Marriage is a religious
practice, it is in no way related
to government, and as such,
marriage should not be associ
ated with the govermnent
either. However, the simple
fact is that it is, and there is no
way that deregulating it would
go-over very well. Besides,
many government regulations
depend upon marriage to func
tion, and as such, it would not
be practicable to allow any
body who wants to suddenly
be able to marry people legal
To: _A11 Students;
Subject: All
Student Emails
Amy Jicha
T o say that all student
emails were out of con
trol would be an under
statement. There is no good
explanation for the excess of
all-student emails: both ven
ues of item-retrieval are in full
operation. To end the ridicu
lous amount of "All Student
Emails" a change was needed,
threats of revoked privileges
were no longer enough. SGA
claimed that their "primary
concern with all student
emails was that the emails that
were flooding everyone’s
inbox did not pertain to the
whole student body and, in
some cases, were detrimental
to the positive environment
that [they] are trying to main
tain at- Science and Math." It
seems this year has been a bad
one for abusing tlie all-student
system, from summer flames
to school-year inanities.
A single email titled
"Lost Respect" launched a
failed personal attack on SGA
and its president, Jeff Sibrack.
Multiple other emails were
also directed at individuals,
but how does the rest of the
student body feel about the
new policy? Of those sur
veyed, more than half were
satisfied with the old policy,
and less than ten percent
responded that they hated the
old policy and prefer that SGA
sends out all-student emails.
So is the new policy neces
sary? Imagine a line drawn
directly across the middle of
the smdent body, separating
those who approve of the new
policy and those who do not.
Is the updated procedure
for sending all student emails
objectionable? The majority of
those who participated in the
survey do not find the new
policy efficient or accessible
and less than 14% of them
have attempted to use it. So is
there a better way to fix the
problem? Of course, returning
to the original policy is an
option, but other possibilities
would be verbal permission
from SGA or an enforcement
of individual loss of privi
leges. With the current policy,
instantaneous announcements
for Hill mixers via all student
are a thing of the past and
clubs can’t fire off a last
minute reminder for meetings
or events. Meeting times and
event notices have two ways
of gaining student attention:
the SGA all student email pro
cedure, or at-a-glance. Neither
method is as sure or as quick
as the open all student email
system.
The new system is
reducing unwanted emails, but
is it also restricting an impor
tant mode of communication?
SGA is willing to hear your
concerns, so please contact
them with any comments or
suggestions at
SGA@ncssm.edu
ly, so they regulate it.
4 Also, the extent to
which "individuals can prac
tice their own beliefs" is ideal
ly upheld only to the extent to
which it does not interfere
with the safety of the public,
and can you imagine the con
dition of the future of our
country if all couples were
homosexual? Within 80 years,
our population would be virtu
ally depleted (I realize that an
argument for forced copula
tion and reproduction, could
be based upon this same idea,
but that is not applicable
because the majority of
Americans would be against
such an act, and it would not
pass; this however, is support
ed by the majority and can
therefore be argued. Also, that
is not the issue at hand, it takes
more justification to change
something than to leave it
alone, forced reproduction
does not need to be
denounced, it already is; Gay
Marriage, however, needs to
be vindicated). To further
elaborate, an analogy is
required. Say for instance that
I form a religion requiring me
to murder 100 people per day.
Can I follow this doctrine
pleading religious freedom?
NO!! Only if it does not inter
fere in any way with the future
of the country, and it has
already been established that
both practices are detrimental
to this future.
Thank you for your time
in reading this, and please take
none of this as an assault
against homosexuality, only
against legal recognition of
homosexual marriage. We
should not hate people because
of their beliefs, and try our
best not to discriminate (which
is an entire different question
requiring the defining of dis
crimination, and I will avoid,
but suffice to say that we all
discriminate against all in
some degree) against others
due to these same beliefs. I
realize that some of these
statements are biased, and for
give me, but as I am not writ
ing in an official capacity, I
feel that the same restrictions
do not apply to me. Also, if I
am incorrect on some point,
please hunt me down and rem
edy my ignorance, saving me
the embarrassment which fol
lows from spouting pointless
as well as incorrect drivel.
Have something to say to
the editors? Send your emails
to hawkinsl@ncssm.edu,
butlerb@ncssm.edu, or
stentorian@ncssm.edu
So Long, Super Study!
Ying Liu and Yuan Yang
A lright, 9:30, you guys
are free to go. I hope
you enjoyed the last
night of Super Study." The
words I had waited to hear all
quarter had finally been said.
As I joined the rush
to reach the free ice
cream and donuts in
the ETC, I reflected
on my time in Super
Study.
All quarter
I had heard com
plaints from my
halt, friends, and
classmates about
Super Study, and I
have agreed with
most of them.
Super Study has
given most juniors a
headache from the
very beginning. It
sor is often heard by the stu
dents and creates a distur
bance. I had also heard of spit-
ball wars and fights breaking
out in Super Study. These dis
tractions were not conducive
to studying and defeated the
purpose of Super Study.
required us to study in a room
with the distraction of 30 of
our peers and their idiosyn
crasies for an hour and a half
Everyone studies best under
different conditions. Some
people like music and others
need complete silence. I
remember one Super Study
group was composed of all
boys with the exception of one
girl. For some smdents, this is
not a good studying environ
ment. Some students need a
balance between members of
the opposite sex. Super Study
does not take these factors into
account.
Additionally, all quarter I
had been distracted by
sneezes, coughs, and shuffling
that could have easily been
avoided in my room. Music
that isn’t heard by the supervi
was up very late and was a
zombie the next day. This pol
icy was the worst aspect of
Super Study. Also, Super
Study left little time in the day
to complete group work and
work that required the use of a
school computer lab. For
those students who
needed to play
sports. Super Smdy
made it especially
hard to meet with
other group mem
bers and to seek
help.
The aim of
Super Study was to
focus • students on
studying and to get
them into a habit of
studying. True,
Super Study did
Super study 2nd quarter gets a little less occupied. -force students to
Logan Couce ^^^nd and pretend to
study, but many stu-
The number one
complaint about Super Study
was that it was a waste of time.
Some people just didn’t have
that much homework and
eould have spent their time
doing better things. Others
couldn’t study in Super Study
and would rather have been
somewhere else. For me, my
main complaint with Super
Smdy was that I couldn’t do
any of my homework that
required the computer or the
Internet. On nights when I had
two papers, webassign, and a
project due the next day. Super
Smdy was wasted because I
couldn’t accomplish any of
those things without a comput
er. My time would have been
better spent in the library or in
my room. The result of the
forced Super Smdy was that I
dents just slept or did other
things. A few smdents, how
ever, did find this program
useful. They liked having a set
time to do work where it
would be quiet. Super Smdy
helped to structure their day. I
admit, it did give me a set time
each day where I was forced to
smdy and could not procrasti
nate. It also kept me away
from AIM and other distrac
tions. Overall though, it was a
waste of time. There were too
many distractions and no com
puters. After looking back at
the quarter, I for one am glad
that Super Smdy is over. Now
I’m free to smdy when and
where I want. For those sm
dents who have another quar
ter of Super Smdy, good luck.