Letters to the Editor

Author: [no author name found]

To the Editor:
Those signs are offensive and should not be tolerated. It is my opinion that most students would prefer not to be lambasted by racial and sexual epithets three times a day as they walk into the dining hall. The message on the signs is correct. Those words are offensive and they should not be tolerated, but what is the goal of plastering them all over a board where people are forced to read them over and over again?
Is it possible that there is even one student, faculty member or staff member on this campus, that does not already know those words are not tolerated? I'd say it's not possible. Even the persons involved in the event in question understood this. As for preventing those persons from verbalizing any of those words, I believe this issue should be taken up with the individuals.
Why not write a letter? As spring approaches, family members, alumni and prospective students will be visiting our campus in greater numbers. Do we really want these signs to be the focus of their visits?
Sincerely,
Matthew Amoss '07
New Orleans, La.


To the Editor:
This month, the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (moqa) is sponsoring a series of events known as GAYpril. One such event is a student panel tonight in McCardell Bicentennial Hall 216 at 7:30 p.m. The panel is designed to address fears and curiosities about gay sex. To advertise for this event, students from moqa put up posters in the library, McCullough Student Center, Stewart, Battell, Starr, Ross, Proctor, Gifford, Hepburn and Atwater.
The posters were provocative, but not offensive, and contained statements such as, "Gay Sex: Everything they did not teach you in health class." What saddens and angers us is that people in our College community could not voice their concerns or disapproval directly to us, but instead chose to tear down our posters. After returning to the areas where posters were hung, students found that posters were ripped down, vandalized or simply gone.
We find it insulting to the College community when individuals decide to censor and degrade what appears to be free speech. If homosexuality makes you uncomfortable, then put up your own posters or come and speak directly with moqa. It is unfortunate to find homophobia present on an allegedly liberal campus. While students claim to be "open-minded," they instead deal with true bigotry in secret, without maturity. Middlebury has the potential to be a supportive community, but an underlying homophobic sentiment continues to encourage closet mentality, and this ignorance will continue to discourage the fight for diversity and acceptance.
Sincerely,
Baylie Roth '09.5
Tamara Vatnick '07
Chrissy Etienne '07

To the Editor:
Isn't it interesting that Dave Barker pines "why can't Middlebury's ambitious and ingenious scholars scheme up pranks worthy of those at a college like MIT?" If his intent was to lead by example he failed miserably. There is nothing funny about mocking the sanitary practices of Middlebury Dining Services - especially when there is no basis for the joke. In addition, there was no moment of revelation where everyone realizes that a joke is being played - a critical element in a good April Fool's joke. You have a good point, Dave - your "prank" is not worthy of a college like Middlebury or MIT. Perhaps you could submit it to the University of Phoenix's Online degree program.
Sincerely,
John Nordmeyer
Dining Services


To the Editor:
Recently ["Speaker Does not Reflect Midd Values'" Campus, March 30], some of my close friends criticized the invitation to Ann Veneman. They do not "mean to suggest that there is nothing to admire in her record, or that other colleges and universities would not find her an inspirational commencement speaker." However, commencement "should celebrate better [Middlebury's] particular values."
I question two points:
1. They attack her "long association" with "genetically modified foods." Are GMOs the devil's work? Consider:
a. GMO-engineered vitamins in rice can reduce blindness in developing countries.
b. Herbicide-resistant corn allows the use of Roundup to control weeds. The alternative, tilling, contributes to erosion.
c. Monsanto is working on soybeans with enhanced omega-3.
Move over Ben and Jerry's. You may be replaced as Vermont's hero (fat chance!). You create heart attacks; Monsanto may reduce them.
2. They attack Veneman's advocacy "of unfettered trade" and participation in GATT negotiations. This may suggest that GATT is so evil that our graduates should not be exposed to a contrary view. This is astonishing.
Since 1950, freer trade has contributed to the greatest movement out of poverty in history. Doubters might compare the present Chinese economy with that in the closed Maoist period. Or South Korea with the North. Of course, GATT is not beyond reproach; international agreements involve compromises.
Should we invite only speakers who reinforce our existing views? Should our graduates venture forth, holding firm to the One Right Way of Thinking? Nothing during my delightful years here suggested that this represents Middlebury Values.
Sincerely,
Paul Wonnacott
Alan Holmes
Visiting Professor of
Economics, 1994-2000.