Dear Editor,
After reading “Scandal Sheds unhappy light on Happy Valley,” I hope the thousands of fans and students will see why Paterno was fired. Just because he is arguably the most well-known college football coach doesn’t make him a hero. Nor does it make him incapable of wrongdoing. Lauren Vincent of the Daily Collegian summarizes in her op-ed article that “our society has a sickening tendency to cut sports figures a tremendous amount of slack for even the most lowly actions.”
Rape and sexual assault are offenses with consequences harsher than a 15-yard penalty and a loss of down. Even though “JoePa” was not involved in the actual crime, he is guilty of doing nothing about it. Informing the Athletic Director only once to cover his own ass is not doing what is morally right. Apparently giving 61 years of his life to the university is easier than giving the victims the help they needed.
A rape, let alone 40 counts of alleged child molestation, isn’t something that usually gets swept under the rug. Why didn’t he approach Sandusky about the issue? He only worked with the guy every damn day. Some hero Paterno is.
-Zach Deckler, UMass 2015
To the Editor:
On Nov. 20, Kimberly Ovitz wrote an article in response to unnecessary pepper spraying on a college campus where students were occupying for various economic and educational reasons titled “Police crass and callous at UC Davis.” The police’s actions were shady and unjust. Police brutality drew attention to the public but what struck me was the solidarity the protesters demonstrated. Students, faculty, and community members drove the police force off the University of California at Davis campus by chanting, “Shame on you,” standing with locked arms to prevent arrest for peaceful protesting. As shown in many video clips, students huddled on the ground while allowing officers to pepper spray their hidden faces and physically harass them. Although the acts of police were crass and callous, the protesters preventative actions should be formally recognized. If the students at UC Davis had not stood up for their cause, this event would not have been so widely publicized. Actions like these bring America one-step closer to justice and peace by attracting attention from the public. Participants of occupy UC-Davis set a great example for current occupations across the country and deserve our acknowledgement.
Sincerely,
Robyn Argo
Dear Daily Collegian,
As the parent of a UMass freshman and as a Amherst resident, I was doubly dismayed to read the recent Daily Hampshire Gazette article outlining the drastic cuts that are to be made to the University Health Service.
The dramatic decrease in health service hours, particularly on the weekends is very concerning. Since UHS will only be open from noon to 4 p.m. as opposed to 8 a.m. to midnight, students will see a loss of 24 hours of access to health services on the weekends alone. If a student becomes ill outside of the 4 hours when UHS will be open, what are their options? Wait until the clinic opens the next day? In many cases I’m sure the student will go from sick to very sick. Let us hope, not dangerously sick. Go to Cooley Dickinson Emergency Room? If the student is lucky enough to have a car that could mean hours of waiting at the ER. If they don’t have a car, it may mean calling an ambulance. Tying up the already overburdened town ambulance service transporting sick students who could have been cared for on campus is not a good option.
Closing the UHS pharmacy is also a significant loss to UMass students. University spokesman Edward Blaguszewski makes the point that there are seven pharmacies within a three mile radius of UMass. However, walking three miles in uncertain New England weather, while sick, is not a workable solution.
It seems to be a contradiction that the University, in an attempt to raise the funds to build a new health facility, would gut their current excellent health service and reduce it to a mediocre health service. As parents we pay a mandatory $654 annual fee for the services offered by the University Health Services and we protest the erosion of these essential student services.
Susan Radtke
Editors,
Horoscopes have been used to allow people to predict the outcomes of each individual day since ancient Greece. In the Massachusetts Daily Collegian there is a section everyday which is devoted to the 12 horoscope signs that can be viewed and read each day in order to receive each person’s horoscope. I am upset with the quality of horoscopes received each day. When I read my horoscope, I usually find something that has nothing to do with a horoscope I would receive if I was on the Internet or something that values the horoscopes they distribute and puts effort into creating them. These subpar horoscopes don’t accurately portray the importance past societies have placed on the theory of predetermined horoscopes. The rich history of horoscopes starts back in ancient Greece. The Greeks designated 12 time periods of the year to devote to 12 different personality styles. These different signs are divided into different groups based on the different personality types. They believed that each person’s entire life was predetermined based on which sign they receive at birth. More care can be taken when writing the daily horoscopes of the Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Horoscopes can be written based on the observation of astrology. Online at myhoroscope.com I receive a horoscope in detail that states “You’ve allowed money issues to become too prominent. It’s true that your financial picture isn’t as rosy as you’d like it to be, but whose is? Try to put your troubles in perspective. There’s no need to let these worries impact your relationships with friends and family. Ask for help if you feel you need it”. When this is compared to the horoscopes of the paper, it is noticeable how more informative the other horoscopes are, because they provide more benefits to the people who read them. For example in The Daily Collegian my horoscope was “You have been exceedingly naughty this year. I’m gonna cram a metric ton of coal down your gullet.” This horoscope does not have as much useful information as the previous one. Enhancing the horoscopes would be greatly appreciated by the readers who enjoy reading their horoscopes and will be able to enhance the overall satisfaction the readers receive from the paper.
– Brian Martin
Dear Editor,
Ardee Napolitano’s article “Location of Future Academic Buildings facing resistance” brought a very interesting and controversial topic of debate to the forefront of several thousand students including myself. The issue of expansion versus preservation of a campus historical site is always a topic of debate no matter where the potential new building is being placed in already built up area. As UMass Amherst is so focused on expanding and constantly improving the campus it is naturally to ponder the idea of adding a building in the huge open area next to the campus pond. The building which is planned to start construction in March 2012 would make the campus more pedestrian friendly and centralized but at the same time could impact the sensitive system around the pond. Both sides say that their side of the argument makes it more aesthetically pleasing on campus. I tend to think the addition of this building would be more positive addition to the campus. The landscape is already very spread out and beautiful and simply needs to be condensed at this point.
The other option for the placement of this new academic building is near the Isenberg School of Management or expanding campus and going away from the goal of making the campus more pedestrian friendly. Also going forward with this plan UMass must get the permission from the Massachusetts Historical Commission so funds can be allotted and plans can actually be drawn up for the building. This new academic building would be home for journalism, linguistics, and communications and film studies because right now these departments have no true home and placing this in near the middle of campus would appease this and achieve the goal of improving pedestrian friendliness. I believe this an issue that definitely needs to be brought to the attention of the campus population, as I’m sure there are ideas supporting or descending against both sides of the argument and the more ideas thrown in there can lead to a more reasonable solution that satisfies many different parties at once. Many claim the campus pond would be ruined by the placement of the building but this is only hypothetical as no one knows how it would affect it if the work was done carefully and with enough distance away to not ruin the state of the historical site on campus so the debate will continue on until a new location or the other side admits that the historical site would be undisturbed by the academic buildings presence.
Sincerely,
Shane GreyT
