Welcome freshmen
To the Editor:
It is my distinct privilege to welcome all returning and incoming students into the housing system on behalf of the Residence Hall Association.
As we return to our normal schedule and settle into the routine school year, I am constantly reminded of all the efforts so many student leaders have put into making this transition smooth for everyone. Oriflamme leaders start the process of building community at a campus-wide level. Resident Advisors, Duty Assistants and Assistant Residence Coordinators work diligently to ready the buildings, and to nurture and support growing friendships year round. Student Activities Board members plan events and bring in top-notch entertainers and social activities that many of us enjoy.
Such a wealth of opportunities on campus are created by students who work hard to continue the tradition of excellence here at Saint Louis University. Thank you for all of your hard work.
I am excited about the coming year and I encourage you to get involved in the halls, fraternities, sororities, intramural and club sports teams, to support other student organizations and our athletic teams.
I would also like to take a moment to share all the opportunities that the Residence Hall Association has to offer. We are proud to support the Billiken Blockbuster Cinema, USA Today Newspaper Readership program, Campus-wide social and educational programming, student advocacy, leadership experiences, Midnight Breakfast and various fundraisers to help residence halls feel more like home. Once again thank you to the many students who have spent sleepless nights in preparation for the coming year.
I look forward to working with you.
Mary Elizabeth Curtice
President, Residence Hall Association
—————————————————————————
Activism pays off
To the Editor:
Apparently social activism does work, and now all Saint Louis University students will breath easier for it, not to mention the people who live in and around the midtown area.
Last year, in this paper, I was pleased to report on a movement that was being furthered by a number of SLU students on behalf of the entire St. Louis community. But I believe the most effective testimony on the issue and campaign to close down the SLU Hospital Medical Waste Incinerator came from a series of Letters to the Editor that transcended a number of issues.
On behalf of the Saint Louis University Greens and the St. Louis Gateway Greens Tenet has chosen to “stop defending the use” of their incinerator under local pressure, and under the pressure from a future investigation.
The campaign to close the incinerator was furthered mostly by the two organizations I mentioned above, and they worked under the excellent leadership of Dr. Dan Berg of Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
As the St. Louis Board of Aldermen is on the verge of passing a law that will shut down the even-more-harmful North City incinerator, I would like SLU students to pause and understand that those on this campus and throughout the city who work tirelessly on social justice issues do make a difference and that those who seek to make things right can and do succeed-often to the betterment of many who will never know the work that was done. If students would like more information on this or other environmental issues please call the Green Center at 721-3192.
Paul Woody
Arts & Sciences, ’01
—————————————————————————
NBA for any age
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to Brian Reardon’s commentary concerning a minimum age limit for the NBA.
First of all, his premise is ridiculous. The NBA exists to showcase the best players it can find. It makes absolutely no difference if the best players are 15 or 40. If an NBA team offers a teen-ager a contract, that decision is entirely up to the lucky individual, not whether Mr. Reardon thinks he knows how to better run the kid’s life. If you think college is more important than making millions in the NBA, go ahead and write a letter to Kwame or his mother and maybe they’ll see your point of view, but just because you have different priorities, doesn’t mean you get to make the rules.
Second, Reardon tries to justify his point by comparing playing in the NBA to going to strip clubs and buying beer. This is a rather stupid analogy. For starters, nobody is paying you to get drunk and watch bouncing breasts, and furthermore you can play basketball as an amateur at any age, not so these other “sinful” activities; getting someone to pay you for your skills does not make it any more relevant to his comparison. Reardon’s whole article hangs on the idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own decisions. College life is important to Brian, so it should be important to everyone, and if you disagree he’ll make sure you miss out on a million dollar paycheck.
The bottom line is that if an NBA team is willing to shell out the bucks and a player is willing to sign the contract, no one else has any right to be involved in the decision. If the guy signing the checks thinks Kwame Brown is old enough and his parents are OK with the deal, that’s all anyone needs to know.
And while we’re at it, I’d like to ask Brian why he is so enthralled with age limits for drinking, gambling and striptease? Why is it that on my 21st birthday I will somehow magically transform from a helpless child who needs to be shielded from the evils of the world, into a responsible adult able to discern from myself? Quite a change 24 hours can make. Or not.
The fact is, there are plenty of 30-year-olds who can’t hold their liquor and 15-year-olds who would never drink even if given the opportunity. The people making the decisions as to who can be served, should be the people actually doing the serving. If a liquor store clerk thinks a kid is too young to be drinking, he makes that choice, not uber-moralist Elizabeth Dole. And of course, the parents could always be a little more on the ball themselves, when it comes to their kids drinking.
In conclusion, if years from now Brian Reardon’s son is offered a NBA contract right out of high school, he can always say no, but in the meantime I would appreciate it if he would mind his own business concerning other people’s employment choices.
Robert Sternberg
Sophomore
—————————————————————————
An interesting correlation
To the Editor:
The death of Fr. Paul Reinert should not pass without mention of one of his many achievements: the successful trip he took to Europe back in 1946 to persuade Kurt von Schussnig, the former chancellor of Austria and subsequent prisoner of Hitler, to teach at Saint Louis University. Schussnig, who taught here for 19 years, went on to establish himself as one of the great professors of this great university.
Moreover, it was to Reinert’s credit that he gave Schussnig a free hand. Schussnig’s already considerable intellect had been fertilized through lengthy conversations with some of Europe’s best minds, people who also had been held captive by Hitler and whose views were not always in line with official church dogma. His courses in European history became student favorites. He opened the eyes of his students, challenged their thinking and broadened their horizons. Through him they learned of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment and of the terrible religious wars that almost destroyed European civilization. The Catholic Church played a role in all of these events, and Schussnig did not hesitate to note the corruption of various church leaders. His students ate it up.
Through him, they learned that history is ourselves, and, if we keep an open mind, history teaches valuable lessons, among them: the importance of tolerance, the recognition that other faiths can offer sound ideas and church leaders were often opposed to ideas that later proved to be of special merit. Having experienced first-hand the pluralism of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Schussnig embraced the pluralistic American society. He loved his job.
Were Schussnig alive today there can be no doubt that he would place merit first and therefore would oppose the recent Vatican decision that requires all Catholic colleges and universities have a majority of Catholics on their boards of regents.
Further, he most certainly would oppose the Vatican’s recent insistence that all teachers at these institutions, before they can say or print a word, receive a “mandatum,” which is gained only after all potential course material is reviewed and approved by a handful of Catholic elders.
Schussnig knew from experience the dangers censorship poses to a free society and ultimately to the Church itself. Upon my return from Europe, I remember the conversations we had in German and his observation, “Auf jeder Frage gibt es zwei Seiten.” (To every question, there are two sides.)
One final point: Prior to Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938 (after which Schussnig and his wife were imprisoned), Hitler’s agents had already infiltrated Austrian newspapers, radio, police and government posts; thus, by the time the German troops marched across the border, no resistance was offered. Krupp, Thyssen and other German industrialists and bankers had financed Hitler’s rise to power, and subversion was one of their weapons. Schussnig undoubtedly would caution us to be on guard for such fifth-column activities today by people who for reasons, economic or religious, would use the powers of government not only to advance their agenda, but also to avoid prosecution.
Donald Meyer
