Dear Reporter,
I have an issue with the article titled “Tiger Den” for the issue dated October 10, 2008. You’ve left out several details that fail to recognize key individuals involved with the home match that took place on October 1, 2008. I have no issue with the writing regarding Tiger Den. The Tiger Den is great and using the Tiger Den to get people to home contests has proven to be an invaluable asset to all teams.

To clarify further, “Dig Pink” was brought to RIT by the Women’s Head Volleyball Coach Roger Worsley. The Side-Out Foundation provides tools and suggestions for event management and donor collection. Dig Pink is their signature event used across the nation to unite all volleyball teams in their effort to raise money for breast cancer awareness. Coach Worsley was presented with the opportunity to host a community event and recognized the importance of service through sport immediately.

I have hosted similar events at previous coaching posts and was charged with organizing the event and securing donations/sponsorships. I enlisted the help of junior Vic Petko to get Tiger Den and SAAC involved. I believe it was at this time Women’s Lacrosse became involved with the event. I just want to emphasize that this was a collaborative effort spearheaded by the Women’s Volleyball team. Vic did a great job decorating and getting the student groups involved. We used our event on the 1st (of October) to help kick off Breast Cancer Awareness Month in hopes to support the efforts of other groups on campus by bringing awareness to the forefront.

In addition to raising money for the Side-Out Foundation, we signed a jersey and presented it to Anna McKinney. Her father Jeff is a longtime volleyball official and well known in volleyball circles. Even though Anna doesn’t have breast cancer her story is special because of their proximity to RIT volleyball both literally and figuratively. Jeff is the Athletic Director at Greece Athena. The volleyball team at Athena was present in full force at the match dressed in pink. Some had the opportunity to work the match as ball/towel girls. Jeff has officiated numerous matches at RIT as a college official and a USA Volleyball juniors official. His daughter Anna was diagnosed this summer with leukemia and has been in and out of the hospital for a better part of the year. It was our way of supporting Anna, Jeff, and their family.

On a closing note it seems petty to point out the details of an event that is weeks old, but the people involved worked very hard to make sure the event ran smoothly and I wanted to make sure the proper credit was given to those involved. “Real Tigers Dig Pink” is the slogan we (Women’s Volleyball) chose to represent our effort to raise money for breast cancer awareness and research. There are portions of the article which leads readers to conclude that a player from Women’s Lacrosse started and organized a Women’s Volleyball event. Not to detract from the efforts of Women’s Lacrosse or SAAC’s involvement, but that just doesn’t make any sense.

I hope you can see where my disappointment in the Reporter is coming from and that in the future all writers for the Reporter will exercise due diligence in the gathering of facts and information from all the parties involved.

Regards,
Bouaketh Chanthavisouk
Assistant Women’s Volleyball Coach

Dear Reporter,
I was disappointed when I read the article “Intolerance” in the October 17 issue. I certainly shouldn’t hope that a staff editorial on a college campus would try to find some middle ground through an exchange of ideas over highly debatable and certainly controversial topics such as abortion and the role of religion in lawmaking. However, in place of that we were given an essay on reasons why the Democratic National Party’s platform is more palatable in government than religious fundamentalism.

I certainly would never argue against the idea of gay rights or the right of a woman to choose, but “Intolerance” boiled these issues down to an overly simple and alarmingly strict guideline: “It’s not government’s job to regulate morality,” and that therefore nobody should use religion as a reason for creating any particular law. Outside of the inherent hypocrisy of declaring that someone else should follow your particular set of beliefs — in this case, ironically, the lack of religious beliefs, but I digress — in lawmaking (I get the mental image of a mother smacking her young son and yelling “We do NOT hit!”), this is, to me, a dumbed-down vision of what legislature should be.

It’s easy to say our society cannot be dictated by the moral beliefs of a fraction of that society, but surely Mr. Tosswill would have something to say on the topics of torture or the death penalty, the abolition of which would be based on the strong morals of our lawmakers, perhaps guided by their personal religious beliefs on the sanctity of human life and rights.

It is simply my wish to see less soapbox preaching in the Reporter and more thought-provoking debate and insight, especially when it comes to controversial discussions that we could be having instead of some writer on a college campus telling us how we should be thinking and why.

Also, please don’t hit anybody. We don’t hit.

Andrew Gibson, Fifth year Computer Science

Dear Reporter,
When I first saw the “Intolerance” article, I was more than anxious by what I thought was going to be another Conservative bashing party. Mr. Tosswill put together a very informative and well-written piece, and it is obvious this is a very important issue to him. However, I am worried by the aggressive tone with which he approached religion and one statement in particular, “It’s not government’s job to regulate morality.”

First, it’s okay to be intolerant. The word “intolerant” has become hijacked by our culture, and now only has negative connotations. There are instances of positive intolerance. My teachers are intolerant of late homework, my roommates are intolerant of waking up early, and I am intolerant of unclean restrooms.

It is the government’s duty is to ensure the morality of the populace. In fact, a government that is totally tolerant is an institution without purpose. The government is made to be intolerant of theft, rape, murder, etc. Many of these “intolerances” come straight from the Old Testament, Torah, Qur’an, etc., so it is quite fair to say that religious views are present in almost all law books throughout the United States.

“But wait,” some might say, “aren’t all humans moral agents, and holy books have just incorporated existing moral values into a system of belief?” If this is true, then it simply means that by the transitive property, moral agents are intolerant. Since all serving members of the United States government are human, I suppose that religion-enforced moral codes will remain a part of US law indefinitely.

Second, I felt as if the article was attacking Christianity in particular (probably due to the words “church,” “New Testament,” “Old Testament,” and the big picture of Jesus preceding the article), despite the fact that there are a variety of other religions that oppose abortion (Hinduism, Traditional Buddhism), and homosexuality (Islam, Judaism). Unlike many, I do not believe that abortion or homosexuality negatively affects me. But they do strongly affect the individuals who engage in them. Frankly, whether abortion or homosexuality is morally acceptable or not, these are issues that do not need to be addressed in Reporter. I feel they can only inspire inflammatory and unconstructive responses.

I appreciate Mr. Tosswill’s opinions on intolerance, and I hope to read more articles written by him in the future.

Zachary Sproul, Second Year
Software Engineering

Dear Reporter,
I just thought I’d clear something up with Chris Tosswell’s article, “Intolerance.” The abortion issue has nothing to do with religion, morality, or faith. It is actually one of individual liberty. While I do believe in God, I am a big time secularist. I favor the repeal of all laws prohibiting prostitution, gambling, drugs, marriage (gay or otherwise, because it’s simply none of the government’s business) and much more simply because I value the individual’s right to make his or her own choices above anything else.

That said, I am indeed pro-life. Why? Because as Chris pointed out, we cannot scientifically pin-point when human life begins. While a woman certainly has a right to do what she wishes with her own body, we cannot assume that she has a right to commit a violent act toward another being that may or may not be an individual (even from a secular perspective). If you could scientifically show me exactly when life begins, I would be more than willing to support state legislation that permits pregnancy terminations up to that point (but not Federal legislation, see Tenth Amendment). I don’t care what your position on the issue is or what you think of mine, but let it be known that my faith has nothing to do with it.

James Gimbi, Second year
Information Security and Forensics

Dear Reporter,
I think that the inclusion of the opinion article "Intolerance" was irresponsible. I do not appreciate having my Lord and Savior slandered in that way. Jesus Christ will not and never has been defined by the people who follow him, let alone those who claim to follow him for political gain. Having just finished Ally week, I should think that the use of over-arching stereotypes based on minimal understanding would be frowned upon. If one is going to criticize a part of the church that is fine. I will often join with that criticism (gay-bashing, political preaching, and attempts to legislate morality). To allow someone to slander the name of Jesus Christ and all Christians in your magazine by suggesting that all Christians support hate and religious legislation is as I said before: Irresponsible. I expect to see some correction or apology, or if nothing else some response as to why you will not reconcile this error.

Thank you for your time,
Alexander Turner
First year Mechanical Engineering

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed by Chris Tosswill and other authors in the Views section of our magazine are the author’s own, and are intended to provide commentary or spark debate. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Reporter or of its staff.

Dear Reporter,
I just thought I'd clear something up with Chris Tosswell's article, "Intolerance." The abortion issue has nothing to do with religion, morality, or faith it is actually one of individual liberty. While I do believe in God, I am a big time secularist. I favor the repeal of all laws prohibiting prostitution, gambling, drugs, marriage (gay or otherwise, because it's simply none of the government’s business) and much more simply because I value the individual’s right to make his or her own choices above anything else.

That said, I am indeed pro-life. Why? Because as Chris pointed out, we cannot scientifically pin-point when human life begins. While a woman certainly has a right to do what she wishes with her own body, we cannot assume that she has a right to commit a violent act toward another being that may or may not be an individual (even from a secular perspective). If you could scientifically show me exactly when life begins, I would be more than willing to support state legislation that permits pregnancy terminations up to that point (but not Federal legislation, see Tenth Amendment). I don't care what your position on the issue is or what you think of mine, but let it be known that my faith has nothing to do with it.

James Gimbi
Second year Information Security and Forensics

Dear Reporter,
I just wanted to clear up a few things in response to last week's featured opinion "Intolerance." The author of the piece, in his attempt to separate religion from politics, was obviously looking at organized religion and it's viewpoints from the outside in, and as a result produced a vastly ignorant and uninformed article. His first misleading argument was that all of the laws that oppose abortion are based off of religious "moral arguments." The reality is that many arguments exist, some of which are the strongest in the movement, that have no religious context whatsoever.

Today if you direct your attention away from the mainstream media, you will find many Doctors (such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson the last remaining founder or NARAL), scientists, atheists, and agnostics (Google atheists for life) who use logic to prove the gravely flawed arguments of the pro-choice party. By presenting the pro-life party as a group of religious zealots you are unfairly undercutting a position that has a wealth of knowledge and understanding to support itself. To show indifference to when a fetus gains personhood, you are showing indifference to personhood itself. Pro-life is pro rights, the right to life which logically must proceed before any other right.

In regard to your criticism on religion as a baseless belief system it is important to remember that atheism is just as much of a belief system as Judaism and Islam, though it may be devoid of the rituals. Belief in God is the same leap of faith as disbelief, as God cannot be proven or disproven rationally. It is ridiculous to say that our actions and opinions should not be influenced by our knowledge and beliefs. There must be a separation of church and state, but religion will and should impact the way a person sees the world. If you do your research you will find that the First Amendment was meant explicitly to protect religion and the "Intolerances" against it, not to keep religion out of peoples social outlook. A quote taken from Thomas Jefferson referring to the First Amendment in 1802 helps illustrate this point: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ’make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church State.’"

With current bills proposed which force Catholic hospitals to either provide or refer women to abortions, it seems the original intention of our Founding Fathers has been lost to our current generation but not in the way you implied.

Steve Lawson
Fourth Year Film student

Dear Reporter,
I went to Fordham University for two years before transferring to RIT. One of the things that the students griped a lot about at Fordham was the online info system that was in place to handle class registration, bills, and the like. The system was very unreliable when it was working, and was a nightmare to navigate on class registration day, before it inevitably crashed and caused mass confusion and rage among the student population. One of the smaller things I was looking forward to upon registering at RIT was a robust, reliable information network that would most likely be found at any respectable technology school.

For the most part, RIT's internet services and IT department are very well implemented. However, this is not entirely the case. I am sitting here at 6:28 in the morning, clicking the "Student Info System" link over and over, and getting nowhere because apparently the system is at capacity. I have been doing this since before the website opened at 6:00, in a foolish attempt to get in ahead of the masses of students who are no doubt doing the exact same thing I am. So far, I have managed to log in to the system three times, and have been kicked back out immediately each time. I expect that once more students start waking up and trying to log on, this problem will only get worse, and I will only be able to register in the next few hours if I get lucky and click right after somebody else logs off, and then manage to register before the system kicks me out again.

I realize that there is a lot of traffic on the server on these registration days, but since most students use the system primarily to register for classes, it really should be designed to handle the load. For now, I am a bit disappointed in the fact that an institution with an entire college dedicated to the information sciences can't properly implement a system to serve its own students.

Gus Cost
First year Film student