Dear Reporter,

Last week’s article on the selection of Provost Stan McKenzie as the RIT 2008 Commencement speaker greatly surprised and, frankly, disappointed me. I have come to expect better from students of RIT’s caliber, as well as from our distinguished student magazine.

The quality of RIT is ultimately measured not by the notoriety of individuals who come to the campus to speak, but rather by the quality of the people who work and learn here and by what they accomplish. For this proud institution to invite one of its most distinguished community members to speak at Commencement in the year he steps down after 41 years at RIT and 15 years as Provost is both a most appropriate honor for him and a statement to RIT and the rest of the world that there are voices within our community worth listening to at our most important forums.

Dr. McKenzie served RIT in many ways during his 41 years here. Prior to becoming Provost in 1994, he was an inspirational and awardwinning professor of English literature. His popular classes always filled immediately, and he hosted final exam parties in his Jacuzzi! His self-proclaimed most fulfilling role, however, was that Director of Judicial Affairs, a position he held for 16 years. There Dr. McKenzie found deep satisfaction in working to help students “deal with their problems and get their lives back on track.” To know that Dr. McKenzie is viewed with lasting respect and gratitude by troubled students who came before him with disciplinary issues will give you some idea of the caliber of the man to whom you will be listening to on commencement day.

The opportunity to recognize an individual within our community in this way does not, and should not, come often, but when it does we should use the occasion to celebrate the greatness within our own ranks. Too many in our culture are infatuated with the famous over the substantive. Reporter appears to have fallen into the same trap, and in doing so has slighted a wonderful man who has done more for RIT than any Commencement speaker in the past decade.

Sincerely yours,
BILL DESTLER
President

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed by Casey Dehlinger and other authors in the Views section of our magazine are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Reporter or of its staff.

Dear Reporter,

After reading your “SG Election Controversy” article, in the April 25th issue, I felt the subject warranted some clarification. For starters, I am shocked that the Reporter would print a confidential e-mail correspondence without the author’s (my) permission. This not only violates copyright law, but goes against the very nature of ethical journalism. And since you took quotes out of context, you could be held responsible for anything I consider libelous. Seriously—people have been sued for a lot less.

Michael [Deyhim] believes that I’m biased because he didn’t like my response to his condescending e-mails. But what he doesn’t understand is that I’m a hardass to everyone. Any success I’ve seen in life was a direct result of hard work. He didn’t win this election because he didn’t work hard enough. I encouraged him to go out and meet people (one of your many omissions from my email), but he chose to battle with SG instead. And the results show that was a mistake. Being impartial doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions; it means that I don’t officially act on them.

I could go on endlessly about the flaws in the election process, Michael’s poor attitude, your skewed article, and etcetera. But the bottom line is that candidates have a responsibility to promote themselves. I slept fourteen hours over the course of five days because I was busy handling technical issues with the election. That’s the reason Michael’s complaint ranked low on my list. And if there was any biased, I think we gave Michael a break when he didn’t deserve one. If a student can’t handle a college governance election, how will he or she ever handle a real job?

BOB CARROLL
Student Government Systems Administrator
5th year Software Engineering

Editor’s note: The e-mails Mr. Carroll refer to were provided to Reporter by Michael Deyhim, to whom he had sent them. They had no confidentiality notice attached, nor was any prior agreement made between Mr. Deyhim and Mr. Carroll that these e-mails would be kept confidential. Reporter stands by the article in question (“Deyhim: ‘SG Screwed Up’”) and does not believe any of the quotations were taken out of context.

Dear Reporter,

I was looking at this week’s issue (4/25/080 and noticed that in the “At Your Leisure” section, you had a section that had “How RIT can use antisemitic graffiti to its advantage.” I find this extremely offensive. I am not part of the jewish [sic] community, just so you know, and I find this extremely offensive. The fact that you allow this in your magazine undermines how malicious antisemitism graffiti, or any sort of hateful display is. You are undermining hateful behavior that has led to war, segregation, and all types of violent acts, the holocaust, remember? How can you put this in your magazine???

What are we supposed to expect from a magazine that allows this type of content? As a student I believe that a university magazine should have enter taining and at the same time intelligent and thoughtful content, which is not what you put in this section.

I expect you to apologize not only to the jewish [sic] community but to RIT in general.

ROSA MITSUMASU HEREDIA
5th year Industrial and Systems Engineering

Editor’s note: The cartoon on the At Your Leisure page was meant to provide commentary on the recent instances of bias related graffiti on campus. Reporter did not mean to offend anyone, and does not support anti-Semitic behaviors.

Dear Reporter,

There has been a recent hubbub on campus with people wearing shirts that say “I Agree with Josh”. This is, at best, an underhanded attempt at proselytizing on campus, and at worst, deceptive. I’m not mad because they’re trying to start a dialog. An open dialog about these kind of issues is important. But I’m mad because they’re essentially tricking people into it. In fact, this tactic is not unique to RIT, and is quite common among US universities. A quick search on Google brings up many hits for other campuses’ “I agree with” campaign. Syracuse University had “I agree with Craig” last year, while other campaigns have used Ryan, Sam, or Rachael as their name. This recycled tactic is designed to stir curiosity on the campus, and make people question the shirt-wearers. In return, the shirt wearers start their speech on Jesus, which the questioner may or may not be comfortable with.

Their reasons for agreeing with Josh on their board on the Quarter Mile include “He’s awesome” and “He’s part of my religion”, which, in my opinion, are not good reasons to agree with someone about anything. It instead shows that their main interest is proselytizing. Josh did not write his essay of his own accord, but rather was asked to do so with this interest in mind. When his essay did not pan out the way they wanted, they chose a banal, generic statement of faith instead. While, of course, the people wearing these shirts are free to do so, it seems, at least to me, an exercise in groupthink.

SEAN CASSIDY
Vice Chair of the RIT Skeptics

Dear Reporter,

I just wanted to offer a correction and a little insight into the article "Bio Cups Being Trashed, Not Yet Composted" in the April 18th issue of the magazine.

The compost-able cups, bowls and plates are not being sold to Freshwise Farms, they will be given to Freshwise if/when the contract is finalized. Freshwise is also not the only facility that was contacted as part of this initiative. Dining Services has negotiated with 12 different composting facilities in the Greater Rochester Area, and Freshwise was merely the facility that was willing to move forward. As of Friday April 18th, Freshwise has confirmed a contract with RIT and we will begin sending food compost as soon as possible. Compost-able service ware is still being negotiated.

There is a chance that Freshwise may not agree to take the cups, bowls and plates. Personally, I think this is just one of the reasons the campus should seriously consider constructing its own composting facility.

I am also a little concerned that the article (specifically that "anonymous quote") paints our efforts in an unnecessarily negative light. Yes, the compost-able materials are not yet being composted. This is not due to some sinister scheme on the part of Dining Services or its employees to deceive anyone, but merely the result of negotiations taking longer than expected. The main purpose of this first phase, to educate students and faculty on proper separation of food, compost and refuse, has been a big success. Many people know exactly what can and can't be composted, and will usually throw items in the proper receptacles. This will be key as the whole institute moves towards better sustainability. A sustainable model means nothing without everyone's participation.

And finally, though these new items are not yet being composted, everyone should keep in mind that they will have a much lower impact even in a traditional landfill. They will still degrade within six months to a year, unlike the old foam and polystyrene plastics they are replacing.

ERIC ROSSI
4th year Industrial Design

To Send Letters

Letters can be sent via form. Reporter will not print anonymous letters.

Note: Opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor are solely those of the author. Reporter reserves the right to edit submissions on the basis of content, length, grammar, spelling, and style. Letters are not guaranteed publication. Submissions may be printed and reprinted in any medium. Reporter will not run responses to letters that are responding to a letter.