Spring Break
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 11/18/08 Section: Editorials
Darwish's lecture did not offer fair portrayal of Islam
After attending the Nonie Darwish, "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Left Jihad" lecture, I was completely blown away by the divisive and hate-filled rhetoric which Ms. Darwish conveyed. While her story is noble and her opinion is one which must be respected, it is exactly what our world does not need in trying to solve one of the most pressing problems of our time: peace in the Middle East.
Ms. Darwish talked extensively about the importance of peace in the region, and repeatedly said that it is counter-productive to point fingers and blame the opposing side. Then she followed such comments with outright condemnations of one of our world's largest religions: Islam.Â
Being someone who has multiple friends of both Islamic and Jewish faiths and having traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and Israel this past summer, I feel as if I approach controversial issues, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with an open mind and willingness to see both sides of the story. She undoubtedly offended multiple attendees as she tried to simplify the Palestinian-Arab conflict as being one which is solely to blame on Islam. She continuously bashed Islam and construed its teachings. She repeatedly and wrongfully claimed that all of the Middle East is under Sharia law, and that all Muslims within the Middle East hate Jews and even went so far as to imply that the majority of Muslims in the Middle East would support the murder of Jewish people. While there are many despicable acts which people have committed in the name of Islam, there are also many despicable acts which people have committed in the name of Judaism and Christianity.Â
Ms. Darwish's over-simplification and outright divisive stance towards the problems in the Middle East only further drives a wedge in any hopes of ever obtaining peace. We are at a time where we must come together as a human people and be willing to compromise if there will ever be any hope of peace. Ms. Darwish solely blaming Islam for the problems in the Middle East is counter-productive, divisive and downright offensive.
Matt Kalayjian
KalayjMR@muohio.edu
Student expresses dismay for Hodge's handling of finances
As I sat in the halls of Upham Nov. 11, I was informed of the most aggravating Miami University related news in my four years here. President David Hodge, in order to "maintain fiscal responsibility," denied a faculty department the simple and decent tradition of sending flowers to a recently deceased faculty member. My initial reaction was, 'You've got to be kidding me.' I've met Hodge. I refereed his first broomball game. I watched him cheer on the RedHawk icemen complete with red and white scarf. I liked the guy, right up until today when a disgruntled faculty member informed me of his refusal of a request to send a mourning family flowers. He then informed me of Hodge's recent 11 percent pay raise-equal to roughly $40,000 which includes his personal police escort, his wife's consultant salary and his daughter's Miami-funded maid service.
Times are tough. Miami is on financial lockdown. A hiring freeze has been implemented. Yet the highest paid people on campus are able to accept raises and enjoy frivolous perks? Has my education failed me, or does this seem completely f**ked up to anyone else on campus?
The part of this story that should disgust everyone on campus is the fact that Hodge is denying a 35-year member of the Miami family a decent final gesture. The department has taken up a collection amongst themselves, but that's not the point. When did this institution allow itself to become so indecent? Love and honor to Miami, right Hodge? I guess that mantra is just a song to you, but as a member of this family myself I say to you this: You don't just disappoint me, you disgust me. I have shaken your hand before. Next time we cross paths expect nothing but a bird to be flipped in your direction.
My name is Ben Metcalf. I am a senior finance and decision science double major. I wake up at 5:30 a.m. five days a week to shovel horse feces so I can continue my time here at Miami. I recognize that Hodge and I are on different ends of the spectrum. Yet the fact that the leader of this institution can't find it in himself to spare chump change for a longtime RedHawk, yet gladly accepts personal gain, makes me wonder if we don't have the snobbish stereotype sitting at the head of the table, stealing all the gravy.
Ben Metcalf
metcalba@muohio.edu
OPD takes advantage of students by donation fees
In response to Nov. 11 article, "Miami Sees More Alcohol Violations," I would also like to bring attention to the limited and almost unethical options students have to deal with their menacing citations. My freshman year, I was cited in the dorms (McBride Hall) for underage intoxication. Fortunately, I was able to quickly and smoothly eliminate the charges from my record through a second-chance opportunity called the Diversion Program. This program is run through the Oxford Police Department (OPD) and at the time only required that you pay a fine, pay for the weekend long program and make a $100 donation to the OPD. This was a great opportunity for me and I was very appreciative. After recently watching some of my friends go through the same process and program, I began to discover some grave and disturbing differences; mainly the issue of the donation to the police department. The once reasonable donation has not only been raised to the exorbitant rate of $750, but now, instead of the donation being part of the program it is actually a requirement for acceptance. This greatly distressed me, so I decided to speak with a local attorney. She explained to me that the old policy mandating a donation, as a part of the program was deemed unethical. She expressed similar feelings of disapproval to the current situation but said there is nothing her or any other attorney can do can do about it. She basically explained the situation-that since the Diversion Program is a privilege and not a right, by not making the donation, students would simply be choosing not to take advantage of the opportunities the program brings them. Obviously, this is of no concern to the OPD, which by the radical increase in citations shows they are attempting to not only crack down on underage drinking but at our expense they are generating more revenue for their district.
This does not rest well with myself and many peers, parents and other concerned members of the community for many reasons. First, in order to even be considered for the Diversion Program, you must have an attorney. The going minimum rate amongst attorneys for minor misdemeanors in Oxford is $500. Not cheap by any means. Second, whether mandatory or not, the "new" donation is more than 700 percent increase from the previous one. Now that is unethical. When you add the numbers up and do not forget about all the Miami fines and fees you have to pay, plus court fees/fines and the cost of the program itself, the average student is looking over a $2,000 tab when it is all said and done. I know we have the great opportunity to go to one of the most privileged schools in the country but the OPD is completely exploiting students. Last time I checked, a donation meant a voluntary contribution to some organization or cause. So unless the OPD does not want students to get a second chance, like I am sure many of the officers have in their pasts, they are simply committing extortion.
Instead of helping students, they are making them pay mandatory donations for their own personal gain. This seems to be more unethical than the old premise for acceptance. Not only does this create more student hatred for the local police but what they are doing is wrong and something needs to be done. I cannot sit here and watch students miss out on a great opportunity offered by the local police because the police set the costs so high not all students can afford it.
Jason Wettlin
domingjb@muohio.edu
After attending the Nonie Darwish, "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Left Jihad" lecture, I was completely blown away by the divisive and hate-filled rhetoric which Ms. Darwish conveyed. While her story is noble and her opinion is one which must be respected, it is exactly what our world does not need in trying to solve one of the most pressing problems of our time: peace in the Middle East.
Ms. Darwish talked extensively about the importance of peace in the region, and repeatedly said that it is counter-productive to point fingers and blame the opposing side. Then she followed such comments with outright condemnations of one of our world's largest religions: Islam.Â
Being someone who has multiple friends of both Islamic and Jewish faiths and having traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and Israel this past summer, I feel as if I approach controversial issues, such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with an open mind and willingness to see both sides of the story. She undoubtedly offended multiple attendees as she tried to simplify the Palestinian-Arab conflict as being one which is solely to blame on Islam. She continuously bashed Islam and construed its teachings. She repeatedly and wrongfully claimed that all of the Middle East is under Sharia law, and that all Muslims within the Middle East hate Jews and even went so far as to imply that the majority of Muslims in the Middle East would support the murder of Jewish people. While there are many despicable acts which people have committed in the name of Islam, there are also many despicable acts which people have committed in the name of Judaism and Christianity.Â
Ms. Darwish's over-simplification and outright divisive stance towards the problems in the Middle East only further drives a wedge in any hopes of ever obtaining peace. We are at a time where we must come together as a human people and be willing to compromise if there will ever be any hope of peace. Ms. Darwish solely blaming Islam for the problems in the Middle East is counter-productive, divisive and downright offensive.
Matt Kalayjian
KalayjMR@muohio.edu
Student expresses dismay for Hodge's handling of finances
As I sat in the halls of Upham Nov. 11, I was informed of the most aggravating Miami University related news in my four years here. President David Hodge, in order to "maintain fiscal responsibility," denied a faculty department the simple and decent tradition of sending flowers to a recently deceased faculty member. My initial reaction was, 'You've got to be kidding me.' I've met Hodge. I refereed his first broomball game. I watched him cheer on the RedHawk icemen complete with red and white scarf. I liked the guy, right up until today when a disgruntled faculty member informed me of his refusal of a request to send a mourning family flowers. He then informed me of Hodge's recent 11 percent pay raise-equal to roughly $40,000 which includes his personal police escort, his wife's consultant salary and his daughter's Miami-funded maid service.
Times are tough. Miami is on financial lockdown. A hiring freeze has been implemented. Yet the highest paid people on campus are able to accept raises and enjoy frivolous perks? Has my education failed me, or does this seem completely f**ked up to anyone else on campus?
The part of this story that should disgust everyone on campus is the fact that Hodge is denying a 35-year member of the Miami family a decent final gesture. The department has taken up a collection amongst themselves, but that's not the point. When did this institution allow itself to become so indecent? Love and honor to Miami, right Hodge? I guess that mantra is just a song to you, but as a member of this family myself I say to you this: You don't just disappoint me, you disgust me. I have shaken your hand before. Next time we cross paths expect nothing but a bird to be flipped in your direction.
My name is Ben Metcalf. I am a senior finance and decision science double major. I wake up at 5:30 a.m. five days a week to shovel horse feces so I can continue my time here at Miami. I recognize that Hodge and I are on different ends of the spectrum. Yet the fact that the leader of this institution can't find it in himself to spare chump change for a longtime RedHawk, yet gladly accepts personal gain, makes me wonder if we don't have the snobbish stereotype sitting at the head of the table, stealing all the gravy.
Ben Metcalf
metcalba@muohio.edu
OPD takes advantage of students by donation fees
In response to Nov. 11 article, "Miami Sees More Alcohol Violations," I would also like to bring attention to the limited and almost unethical options students have to deal with their menacing citations. My freshman year, I was cited in the dorms (McBride Hall) for underage intoxication. Fortunately, I was able to quickly and smoothly eliminate the charges from my record through a second-chance opportunity called the Diversion Program. This program is run through the Oxford Police Department (OPD) and at the time only required that you pay a fine, pay for the weekend long program and make a $100 donation to the OPD. This was a great opportunity for me and I was very appreciative. After recently watching some of my friends go through the same process and program, I began to discover some grave and disturbing differences; mainly the issue of the donation to the police department. The once reasonable donation has not only been raised to the exorbitant rate of $750, but now, instead of the donation being part of the program it is actually a requirement for acceptance. This greatly distressed me, so I decided to speak with a local attorney. She explained to me that the old policy mandating a donation, as a part of the program was deemed unethical. She expressed similar feelings of disapproval to the current situation but said there is nothing her or any other attorney can do can do about it. She basically explained the situation-that since the Diversion Program is a privilege and not a right, by not making the donation, students would simply be choosing not to take advantage of the opportunities the program brings them. Obviously, this is of no concern to the OPD, which by the radical increase in citations shows they are attempting to not only crack down on underage drinking but at our expense they are generating more revenue for their district.
This does not rest well with myself and many peers, parents and other concerned members of the community for many reasons. First, in order to even be considered for the Diversion Program, you must have an attorney. The going minimum rate amongst attorneys for minor misdemeanors in Oxford is $500. Not cheap by any means. Second, whether mandatory or not, the "new" donation is more than 700 percent increase from the previous one. Now that is unethical. When you add the numbers up and do not forget about all the Miami fines and fees you have to pay, plus court fees/fines and the cost of the program itself, the average student is looking over a $2,000 tab when it is all said and done. I know we have the great opportunity to go to one of the most privileged schools in the country but the OPD is completely exploiting students. Last time I checked, a donation meant a voluntary contribution to some organization or cause. So unless the OPD does not want students to get a second chance, like I am sure many of the officers have in their pasts, they are simply committing extortion.
Instead of helping students, they are making them pay mandatory donations for their own personal gain. This seems to be more unethical than the old premise for acceptance. Not only does this create more student hatred for the local police but what they are doing is wrong and something needs to be done. I cannot sit here and watch students miss out on a great opportunity offered by the local police because the police set the costs so high not all students can afford it.
Jason Wettlin
domingjb@muohio.edu
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 11
Raymond Burke
Raymond Burke
posted 11/18/08 @ 12:28 AM EST
Ben,
Do you honestly think that with the financial situation the University is in that President Hodge has the time to look at a proposal to send flowers to a deceased Miami faculty member? The answer is: while Hodge is a decent man who always makes an effort to console those who are lost from the Miami family, there is no way that you can assume that he turned down, yet alone even saw, this proposal. (Continued…)
Bill Friedline
posted 11/19/08 @ 7:35 AM EST
Dear Mr. Wettlin,
Do you not see that what the OPD is doing is to incentivize you into doing the right thing? The goal: to get underage students to think twice before drinking. (Continued…)
William Wallace
posted 11/19/08 @ 9:01 PM EST
Mr. Friedline,
You sure are an idiot. Do you think that in whatever the OPD does is going to stop underage drinking? We are in college, where if you do not drink underage, you will be an outcast. (Continued…)
I AM SAM
posted 11/20/08 @ 4:46 PM EST
Mr. Friedline,
If the goal is to stop underage drinking and teach us a lesson how about the "Donation" goes to an actual charity that fights to stop underage drinking. (Continued…)
Interested Alum
posted 11/21/08 @ 9:40 AM EST
Mr. Friedline,
I commend your common sense answer and advice to Mr. Wettlin. Unfortunately, the only comments you seem to be inviting come from those who are not yet of sufficient age or maturity to appreciate your wisdom. (Continued…)
Bill Friedline
posted 11/21/08 @ 11:57 AM EST
To those who disagree with me, why don't you put some of that righteous effort into getting the law changed?
The only reason you face a 21 drinking age is that lawmakers view you as politically inert. (Continued…)
Steve
posted 2/19/09 @ 8:08 PM EST
Mr. Friedline,
I certainly understand and appreciate the comments you offered, but I feel as though you are missing the greater point. By raising the cost of the "donation" to the OPD, the police have turned the ability to expunge one's record into an issue of economic stature. (Continued…)
Post a Comment