LETTERS: Description in headline confuses organizer

To the Editor: In fact, he told me he is surprised many conservatives have supported his work. At no point in his discussion or in my talks with DP writers was Windschuttle described as a "right-wing author." Because a man may critique a leftist or liberal interpretation of a certain topic does not mean he is necessarily a right-wing conservative, but rather an eager participant in the exchange of ideas. Not only was the description of Windschuttle as a "right-wing author" inaccurate, it is also completely irrelevant to your article. When Oliver Stone came to speak last year, did the headline describe him as a "left-wing filmmaker?" When the numerous minority studies, women's studies or gay studies speakers visit our campus, are they described in your headlines as "left-wing authors" because liberals happen to support their ideas? I have not ever witnessed such an incident, and I believe if it did occur, the sponsors of the event would write a similar letter to this. Perhaps in the future it would be wiser and more sound journalistically to refrain from labeling those who come to Penn with political terms that are wholly inconsequential to their visits, not to mention factually inaccurate. David Kalstein College '99 Free Speech Forum Chairman Their thoughts, too To the Editor: Sarah Giulian's column put a voice to an opinion I have held since I was in school more than 25 years ago ("Real learning? Not at Penn," DP, 10/29/96). As students, we were exhorted to regurgitate the material we read and heard in class, without any real thought. That seemed such a witless exercise, and so non-engaging. Students needed to learn the rules of the particular game each teacher was playing, and then seek to excel at that game, rather than learn. One professor might want you to disagree with the reading, as she or he would do in class. Alternatively, you might be expected to reiterate exactly what was espoused in the lectures; any deviation from this routine, and you were strictly on your own. It was usually safest to stay in complete agreement with the teacher, which is the least challenging path and needs no thought at all. By now, I thought this type of teaching would have been replaced by something better, more streamlined, with much less focus on rote memorization. Although technologies of teaching may have changed, I've been disappointed that techniques largely have not. I was encouraged that Giulian has found a course in which a more efficient technique is employed. She's correct that concentration needs to be on the learning, and college should be the forum for that, probably more than any other situation or place in life. It really should provide the best opportunity for focused study as opposed to cramming. For a long time I've wondered if maybe I was just wrong, and I've thought no one else felt as I did about the nature of teaching in general, so I thank Giulian for writing her viewpoint! Nick Sohier Telecommunications Service Asst. u To the Editor: Marissa Engel College '99 End the Dole-drums To the Editor: I would like to add something to Jamil Smith's comments on Bob Dole ("Why Dole won't win the presidency," DP, 10/29/96). Watching Dole blink and growl during the debates, I was reminded of a character in the movie Good Morning, Vietnam, namely the uptight army officer whom Robin Williams's character describes as "the white man most in need of a blow job." If it's no longer too late for Dole to take steps (including, ahem, the above-mentioned remedy) to improve his standing in the polls, another thing that might help him is, well, "to inhale." Just look at his body language and his speech patterns. The man is in dire need of the happy stuff. Henry Ma Economics Graduate Student On uninvolvement To the Editor: In response to your editorial aside "On the A-3 Assembly" (DP, 10/30/96), I would like to explain why support staff is not involved with the assembly or its elections. As an Administrative Assistant II with the School of Nursing, I solely supported 42 faculty members and five graduate nursing programs. In the past six months, the Nursing School's support staff has been greatly impacted by the administrative restructuring plan. Our hours were changed from 35 to 40, our responsibilites increased, new supervisors were hired from outside the school whom we were asked to train and our yearly raises were mediocre at best. The Nursing School's support staff was not involved in any of the decisions that affected our employment -- and neither was the A-3 Assembly. Although I can only speak of my own experiences, I believe all University support staff have similar problems, and because the assembly cannot impact them, no voters turn out for elections or run for available posts. As you stated, the assembly does not have real power but does act as a voice for the University's support staff. That voice did not help employees of The Book Store, the Nursing School or countless others across the University being affected by the restructuring process. A-3 Assembly members do not have time to worry about elections because they are worrying about their jobs. Many will do what I have already done and leave the University for employment elsewhere. As a part-time student and former employees, I know first-hand how important support staff is for the University to be successful in educating students. I hope the administration realizes this fact before it loses more dedicated employees. Andrea King College of General Studies '98