Whispers’ coverage questionable
Dear Editor:
It was interesting, especially in light of recent controversy over Student Life’s coverage decisions (Feb. 3-10), to read Shweta Murthi’s article about the Mosaic Whispers’ upcoming concert. Although the Whispers’ Splash of Color has always been an excellent show, Ms. Murthi’s reporting seems inconsistent with this paper’s narrow position on promoting student events.
Many student groups have presented productions on a similar – or larger – scale than the upcoming Mosaic Whispers’ show without receiving even modest Student Life coverage of their event. Cultural celebrations, such as Black Anthology and Diwali, draw an enormous attendance at their shows each year and involve dozens of student participants. Many performance groups have invited alumni to participate in programs both routine (annual dramatic and musical productions) and momentous (The Pikers’ 20th anniversary concert). All of these, including the Whispers’ show, are exciting parts of campus life. None of them, except the Whispers’ show, received a front-page headline promoting the upcoming event.
Although it is nice to see some coverage of the Wash. U. a cappella community, a scene involving twelve groups and over 100 students, here, too, it seems Student Life is playing favorites. On February 4th, After Dark hosted the regional quarterfinals of ICCA, the international a cappella tournament, featuring the Washington University Amateurs and Stereotypes, as well as other groups from Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. All of these groups completed a rigorous qualification process and prepared for the competition over several months. Wash. U. was honored to host the quarterfinals for only the second time in the last decade, and yet the event received only 60 words in Student Life’s events listing on February 3rd. The contrast between this and the front-page preview of the Whispers’ annual show is striking.
In no way is this an indictment of the Mosaic Whispers, who should be applauded for their extensive concert promotion and consistent contribution to the Wash. U. a cappella community. However, perhaps Ms. Murthi and her editors at Student Life should reflect upon their coverage decisions. After all, how long can they hope to remain the “Independent Newspaper” of Wash. U. if they keep running their advertisements pro bono?
-Brian Loyal
Class of 2005
Alumni, Washington University After Dark
Praise for criticism of construction habits
Dear Jeff Stepp:
Thank you for your insightful and well-explained article “Olin Solar Panels Will Be Our Tombstone.”ÿMy husband, Professor and electrical engineer Bob Morley, has been a huge proponent for energy saving devices since his undergrad days.ÿMore kids of your generation need to be aware of this stuff, as well as more people in ours…it’s amazing that we live so close to the “greenest building in the world” (Alberici’s headquarters at Page/170) and have such wasteful destruction and construction here at Wash. U.
I applaud you for sharing your thoughts and hope it will raise awareness around campus with students who can help design more green projects in the future and the policymakers there at WU.
Keep up the good journaling!
-Deborah Morley
Field of Plenty
Logical “Perspective,” or Studlife’s “PerSUnal” interest?
Dear Editor:
Student Life’s rationale in their endorsements for the SU exec race lies somewhere between counterintuitive and downright idiotic.Their primary concern with the PerSUnal slate is that its candidates are SU “insiders.” In other words, the Studlife staff seems to believe that the PerSUnal candidates should not be SU execs because they have experience. To me, it seems outrageous to argue that experience is a damaging characteristic of a candidate’s qualifications. On the contrary, Studlife should support “insiders” because they are more likely to do a good job. Not only have they seen how things have worked in the past and know what to do, but they have also signaled their commitment to SU and the student body through their aforementioned participation.
I also want to point out one particular of the Studlife staff’s argument. They readily acknowledge that “People who know as much about SU as Patel are few and far between,” and, yet, they endorse Moinester instead because of his “approachability.” My 16-year-old sister is very nice, approachable, and friendly, but does that mean she would make a better president than a qualified and experienced candidate? Writing Patel in for VP is not a sensible solution either. It makes much more sense for the one who knows what he is doing to be in charge; if you want outsiders with fresh ideas in office, then vote for them to support the knowledgeable candidate. In addition, even if Studlife would like to see both presidential candidates in office, they ought not disregard the person running for VP altogether. That is disrespectful to the dedication and commitment that Jones is putting into his campaign.
In the end, it appears that Studlife’s personal interest in “transparency” has blinded them to who the more qualified candidates actually are. Otherwise, it is inconceivable to me that they could make such dim-witted arguments.
-Joseph Goodman
Class of 2007
IFC and Panhel numbers not accurate
Dear Editor:
As the Vice President of Finance for Panhel, and one of the main campaigners for Panhel/IFC Block Funding, I thank you for your support of our quest for consistent funding. However, before you take a stand on the issue, please make sure you have all the facts.
First, when comparing Panhel and IFC’s block funding request to that of any other student group, it is crucial for you to understand that we are two distinct student groups, both of which are asking for a paltry $2.50, ringing in a COMBINED total of $5. Both Panhel and IFC hold over 20 events each year, only a few of which are actually co-sponsored.
Secondly, realize that the $15,000 is NOT more than the two groups have been allocated in the past. At first glance, it seems Panhel and IFC were allocated approximately $6000 each in the past. However, a closer look (at allocations and appeals) reveals that these figures do no necessarily reflect reality:
2005-2006
Panhel $7,990.35
IFC $5754.76
2004-2005
Panhel $13,980.31
IFC $8,098.47
2003-2004
Panhel $7,446.66
IFC $14,289.50
2002-2003
Panhel $17,296.58
IFC $8,744.20
The numbers themselves illustrate exactly why we believe that Block funding is essential to our student group. Each group’s funding is frustratingly sporadic; however, as you can see, each group often receives nearly the amount requested. Hence, we are requesting no more than we are usually allotted- – rather, we are simply asking for consistency!
Finally, let’s turn our attention to a calumny, namely baseless allegations that events were canceled or cutback because of “lack of planning by former executives.” That is patently false. Last year, Panhel and IFC boasted amazing leadership that took great strives to better the community. It is from their strength and determination that Panhel and IFC have derived their success.
-Katie Kotowski
Panhel VP Finance
Class of 2008
Storch’s pro-choice views ironic
Dear Editor:<
Rachel Storch’s participation in the recent on-campus pro-choice rally exposes a tragic irony:ÿshe spends part of herÿlegislative workdayÿadvocating that people are so optional as to be disposable before birth, and the rest of it wondering why society doesn’t value people more.
-Bryan Kirchoff
University College
Kudos for swim team coverage
Dear Editor:
It was great to read two pieces in the sports section of the March 24 edition of Student Life regarding the swim team’s performance at the national meet and the reflections of some outgoing senior athletes.ÿOne trait that these articles shared was that they featured the voices of the athletes themselves, and were not mere rehashes of games or events.ÿThis is the kind of story that students want to read, ones where we can share in the experiences of our fellow student-athletes. Thank you, Katie and Molly, for your stories.
-Cory Zimmerman
Class of 2006
Co-Captain, Varsity Swim Team