Dear Editor,
I would like to address some of Will Mount's comments in the last edition of The Eagle. He claims that the Student Government is dealing with a "slippery slope" by passing legislation which would ban military recruiters from campus. Will questioned "who would be banned from campus next." I find this line of reasoning laughable. Of course, the next employer to be banned from campus would be the next group to refuse employment to a student based on age, sex, race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or any of the other stipulations in the non-discrimination clause put forth by both the University and District of Columbia law. Will is wrong when he calls University policy a "slippery slope." The policy is, rather, a sheer cliff - AU has a zero tolerance policy. Any group that refuses to hire minorities of any sort will be asked not to recruit on campus. I believe that most students would support fully the removal of an employer from campus who refused to hire a Jew, or an African-American, or a woman. Does Will qualify sexual orientation differently from those other groups? Would he similarly say that AU was on a "slippery slope" if the University required an employer to leave who refused to hire openly Catholic students? Refusing to hire GLBT students is no different. Thankfully, even if Will refuses to acknowledge that, the University does recognize it.
Secondly, I would like to correct a fallacy put forth by Will in The Eagle. He claims that members of the Student Government have "...strongly undervalu[ed] their [the military's] heroic contributions to the United States". Nothing could be further from the truth, and Will knows it. I am a strong supporter of the military. I have many friends in ROTC, as well as two cousins who have just completed officer training school. Members of Student Government who supported this bill know as well as anyone how valuable and heroic the men and women in the Armed Services are to this country. It is an institutionalized policy, rather than individual members, that the SG and the University administration take issue with. It is nothing more than cheap politics and misinformation to call people's support of the military and their patriotism into question.
Chris Sgro Senior, SPA
Dear Editor,
WVAU has taken a turn for the worse. For a campus that prides itself in diversity, our college radio's appreciation for diversity is insufficient. The shows were not decided with the student body in mind. How insulting to the international student body that Japanese music is grouped in the same category as Peruvian music in a category entitled "world music." If WVAU is trying to appeal to the AU student body, it would behoove them to consult the student body when deciding what programs to have instead of being dictators with a "that's that" attitude. How undemocratic. For a station that has minimal listeners to begin with, how can the administration of WVAU seek to increase listeners without consulting a large portion of students first? As a former deejay on WVAU for the past four semesters, I applaud efforts to change the system (the studio was always a mess, no organization), but these format changes fail our student body. For a school that has a nationally renowned communications program, where is our quality student run radio station?
Music diversity is key. Especially on a college campus where learning and new experiences are fundamental. Sure, everyone wants to be able to log on to WVAU.org and listen to familiar and favorite music, but limiting the weekday genre to: talk, indie, world, metal, punk, eclectic and hip hop is not going to cut it and it's a hard case to support. Believing that everyone's musical taste can be categorized into six categories is ignorant and foolish. But perhaps more importantly, it limits the diversity of the deejays. I am the kind of person who lives on classic rock, but also loves everything from folk to jazz. Therefore, in the current format, I have no place in WVAU, and leaves students without a friend over the air waves. Granted, Saturday and Sundays are devoted to "specialty shows," but 1) many students work on the weekends, and 2) it's hard to find students to listen on those days, and let alone, nights.
For the sake of the AU community, WVAU should alter its format and be more open to the idea of music diversity. WVAU is ignoring trends in a business where trends are everything. If our college-run station wants listeners, it will realize what's best for the station and the university and not for a select few.
Gabe Culberg Junior, SOC
